FTC Fines Xanga for Violating Kids' Privacy

WebHostingGuy writes "As reported by MSNBC, the FTC has fined Xanga.com $1 million dollars for repeatedly allowing children under 13 to sign up for the service without getting their parent's consent. This is the largest penalty ever issued for violations of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act." From the article: "'Protecting kids' privacy online is a top priority for America's parents, and for the FTC,' FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras said in a statement. 'COPPA requires all commercial Web sites, including operators of social networking sites like Xanga, to give parents notice and obtain their consent before collecting personal information from kids they know are under 13. A million-dollar penalty should make that obligation crystal clear.'" What impact, if any, do you think this will have on other community sites that may not always follow the COPPA statutes?

Comments

what does this accomplish

[PrinceAshitaka]

The FTC is trying to prevent child predators access to young children, a noble endeavor. The problem is that there are few good ways to confirm a person age online. If they disallow users under 13 from creating accounts, the users will lie about there age. If they want age confirmation, then it costs much more, and less people will wan tto go throug the trouble. I have credit cards but I am not about to use one online for age verification purposes. What about all the legitmate users over 13 that do not have the ability to confirm ones age. I don't know how a 15 year old would go about this online. A 15 year old would not have a drivers license, a credit card, or any other indentification. This will do nothing to help thier goals of protecting children.

That being said, they seem to have broken the law, it doesn't matter that the law has no value.

Re:what does this accomplish

[exley]

You make a valid point -- performing age verification online is difficult, and when age verification is in place, some kids will just circumvent it. But that's not the issue. From the sounds of it, Xanga wasn't even trying to stop kids under 13 from signing up without permission. Xanga knew full well that the kids were under 13 (by the birthdays that they entered when signing up), and as yet, did nothing.

Re:what does this accomplish

[xiphoris]

It absolutely matters that the law has no value. It is any citizen's duty to attempt to reverse such unreasonable laws.

If, as you admit, there is no reasonable way for a website to enforce minimum-age restrictions, then the law is unjust and should not be upheld. Indeed, it will be a good thing for the company to take the FTC to court and get the law struck down, not only as unconstitutional, but hopefully as stupid also. That might send a message to legislators who cry out "But think of the children!" and pass dumb laws as part of their election campaigns.

Re:what does this accomplish

[antifoidulus]

Well, according to the article what Xanga got in trouble for is not validating the birthdate the users gave to see if it was over 13. They just had to check a box stating that they were over 13. However, suppose they did put an extra check in there that rejected the user if the birthdate indicated they were under 13. The ones with minimal ability in math(given the trackrecord in education, I'm not sure how big a percentage of the local population that really is :P) would just change their birhdate to be older than 13.

But of course, the bigger issue is why the FTC and Xanga have to be parents to these kids. It's not like there isn't a massive ad campaign targeting internet ads, radio, tv, and billboards as well as countless news "exposes" about online predators. Parents cannot claim they didn't think their child could be targeted by these things. Parents need to have talks with their kids explaining the risks and above all educate themselves about what goes on. Parents can then monitor their childs internet activity or install filters at either the local or ISP level(though I'm not sure those ISPs that filter are even around anymore).

But who am I kidding? That would be taking personal responsibility for something, which is becoming vastly unpopular in America(and elsewhere really) these days. Even the conservatives like to exculpate themselves from their own bad behavior by blaming faceless entities....Now that I have gotten way off topic, I'll shut up now.

Re:what does this accomplish

[Anonymous Coward]

I can only hope that this judgment will bring some much needed attention to the practices of the FTC. I don't know how they managed to amass the authority they now wield, but a line has to be drawn somewhere - this has gone too far for too long. Too many parents are trying to pass the responsibility of raising their kids on to the government. It is the role of the parents, not the FTC, to monitor and restrict what kids see and the activities they engage in.

Re:what does this accomplish

[ChronosWS]

Actually, it does matter. We should be outraged at ineffective or unrealistic laws such as this which only serve to penalize businesses because they go against the political whims of the day. Just because Congress wants a thing doesn't mean that thing is feasable or that we should be burdened with their unrealistic views of how things should be.

Re:what does this accomplish

[demeteloaf]

The thing is, the kids who did get in were lying anyways. Everyone who wanted to register had to check a box saying that A) They were over 13, and B) they read the terms of service. My guess is that the Xanga designers thought that that was a good enough age check, and they didn't bother writing in code that actually checked the date of birth entered, because the users were already affirming that they were over 13 by checking the box.

Basically the FTC is saying that Xanga needs to make sure the kids are smart enough to lie in 2 different places (both by checking the box saying that they are over 13 and entering a fake date of birth), and because they didn't do that they should have to pay a fine. The solution of forcing the under 13 year olds to lie about their birthdate really doesn't solve anything at all... I know that i personally just used a fake birthdate when I was registering for over 18 sites as a kid, and there's really not going to be anything stopping the under 13 crowd from lying about their age as well.

Re:what does this accomplish

[westlake]

A 15 year old would not have a drivers license, a credit card, or any other indentification.

Pre-teens have been using plastic for quite some time now. Girls Say Hello Kitty To Hello Debit Card (2004)

Re:what does this accomplish

[the children]

That might send a message to legislators who cry out "But think of the children!" Huh? What have I got to do with this?

Re:what does this accomplish

[tonyr1988]

It shouldn't be that easy for children (under 13) to accomplish. The article is correct - it should ask for the birthday, not a box.

An average 13 year old kid will know that they have to check the box to get in. Asking for a birthday (especially if you put it between some other boxes) won't get a second thought from most kids. It's an easy, yet effective (not perfect, but pretty close) age validation.

As far as the "kids will go back and change their birthday" - that's avoidable, too. I remember many years ago I tried signing up for a Yahoo account (goodbye positive karma), but was underage (I think you had to be 16. Either way, I wasn't old enough). They used the birthday trick. However, when I went back to change the birthday, they told me that I was trying to trick them. They kept a log of recently applied-for accounts that were denied because of age, and if too many fields match, they wouldn't let you re-apply.

Why can't Xanga do something like that? We're talking about "tricking" 13 year old kids to tell the truth about their age. It shouldn't be that hard.

Re:what does this accomplish

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does it matter that it's a law if it's valueless?

Re:what does this accomplish

[coleopterana]

It's always been recognized that children under the age of 13 can do the following: unknowingly disclose personal information that makes them vulnerable to people skilled in exploiting and manipulating individuals with limited experience in some areas (like avoiding being prey) and lying about their ages. It's not going to be possible under most circumstances to background check a user's personal information such as his or her age--it's not feasible, it's expensive, and most of the time it's just a waste of time. So why do we even have this act where we require people to declare that they are 13, 18, 21 and up and so on? Well, if it's just that, it doesn't do any good. A 12 year old won't necessarily understand why they are supposde to be at least 13 to have an account on some site or interact with certain people and material, and that's where I think sites should probably, to comply with the spirit of the protection laid out in the law, advise people when registering on their sites WHY they are asking for ages, not just that they are complying with some particular legistation. The child who's aware of the potential that his or her personal information or details inadvertantly disclosed through action or writing on a site or in chat or on a blog like Xanga is much more likely, in my humble opinion and experience with such people, is going to be more careful about their information. We protect children because they don't always have the experience or perspective to think of the things that they could be doing or saying that make them vulnerable to acts by predatory individuals. I don't think so far the legislation is achieving that sort of goal because it's not directed at the people who are doing the revealing, it's been directed at the site owners and parents. These people have some responsibility for sure, but if you ignore the kids out there, you're just asking for trouble. I'd be interested to hear from people who own or run sites like Xanga on what they think about their responsibilities, both in the letter and the spirit of the law, and how they think things in any respect might be changed to be more informative and protective of a potentially vulnerable class of Internat users.

Re:what does this accomplish

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll never get me COPPA!
yea ok... someone had to say it.

Re:what does this accomplish

[Kesch]

Yes, but with a birthdate check instead of just allowing in dishonest preteens, they will only allow in dishonest preteens who can do simple math problems.

Re:what does this accomplish

[Volante3192]

They kept a log of recently applied-for accounts that were denied because of age, and if too many fields match, they wouldn't let you re-apply.

So...just sign up with completely false information under a new account. As far as Yahoo's concerned, I'm a 29 year old from Dallas, Texas with the name Marvin Fischer.

Unless there is Actual. Physical. Verification. there's absolutely nothing that can be done to verify these thing Kids are smart. Smarter than FTC brass, at least.

Re:what does this accomplish

[AusIV]

First, Xanga does have users enter a birthday when signing up, and if the birthdate shows a person is not 13, they cannot sign up.

The rest is not quite true either. If parents become aware of their kid's xanga, there is a process for having the site shut down. Xanga is huge. It would be incredibly difficult (if even possible) for Xanga to monitor all sites. However I believe they have a process for reporting underage users, and look into reports.

Re:what does this accomplish

[exley]

As far as kids lying, that is again a valid point. From TFA:

"COPPA requires all commercial Web sites, including operators of social networking sites like Xanga, to give parents notice and obtain their consent before collecting personal information from kids they know are under 13."

So it's not as simple as the FTC saying that kids should just be able to lie in two different places. Now, how exactly parental consent is supposed to be given is another issue. And of course, there are ways to lie about that as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to jump on the "But what about the children!" bandwagon. But at the same time, not every piece of legislation about protecting children is automatically going to be bullshit just because people here on Slashdot think so. Yeah, things like COPPA could very well be unworkable solutions to the problem. Just in this thread, as well as other comments on this article, plenty of flaws in executing laws such as this are being highlighted. The issue can't just be ignored, though.

Oh, and finally, Xanga should have known full well what their obligations were by law (whether or not the law is crap), and they could have easily covered their asses. So I have no sympathy for them in this matter.

Re:what does this accomplish

[deathy_epl ccs]

Indeed, it will be a good thing for the company to take the FTC to court and get the law struck down, not only as unconstitutional, but hopefully as stupid also. That might send a message to legislators who cry out "But think of the children!" and pass dumb laws as part of their election campaigns.

I'm afraid I don't have enough faith in the system to believe that the law would be struck down. The "think of the children" angle is incredibly effective, that's why it gets used so much for easy points in the polls.

As has been mentioned repeatedly in the conversation, though, Xanga failed to utilize the data they had at hand for the age of these children. It sounds like technical oversight to me based on what I read, but that is neither here nor there - whether malicious or not, they did not practice due diligence. I do not follow cases closely, but I think I'd have heard of a case where somebody got dinged hard in an unreasonable fashion, tied to how difficult it is to truly verify the age of the potential user... but they seem to accept that there is only so much one can do - and therefore, I'm not so sure that in practice, the law is unjust.

Re:what does this accomplish

[Sage Gaspar]

We're talking about "tricking" 13 year old kids to tell the truth about their age. It shouldn't be that hard.

You kidding me? Have you seen the amount of 999 year old people from Ishkabible, Alaskor on Yahoo? You get burned once, you don't do it again. These are kids trying to get access to whatever popular social site is out there right now... a simple age check isn't going to stop them from tracking down the most important things in their little pubescent lives, hehe.

Re:what does this accomplish

[exley]

First, Xanga does have users enter a birthday when signing up, and if the birthdate shows a person is not 13, they cannot sign up.

If that truly is the case, then what would the FTC be basing this on? Can you change your birthdate after you sign up? It sounds like, at some point, it was pretty clear that kids under 13 were signed up, and Xanga just sat on that.

It would be incredibly difficult (if even possible) for Xanga to monitor all sites.

Would it? Surely there must be a way that they could automatically scan through user profiles on a regular basis to find ones where the birthday indicates an underage user.

Re:what does this accomplish

[uw_badgers]

First, Xanga does have users enter a birthday when signing up, and if the birthdate shows a person is not 13, they cannot sign up.

Now they do, but apparently there was a period of time where they didn't check the birthdate, and 1.7 million children under 13 signed up. From the MSNBC article:

"Children merely had to check a box confirming they were over 13, according to FTC lawyer Mary Engle -- even if they'd previously entered a birth date indicating they were under 13."

Re:what does this accomplish

[suuutch]

I think you misinterpreted the article. It wasn't the fact that Xanga was unable to verify the 13 year olds' ages, it was the private information they allowed these users they KNEW were 13 years old or younger to post.

Re:what does this accomplish

[kosmosik]

> If, as you admit, there is no reasonable way for a website to
> enforce minimum-age restrictions,

I live in Poland/Europe. For starters. :)

Here when you are born you get a PESEL number which is date of birth +some ID. The same number is printed on your ID documents whenever you are an adult on a minor.

My point is that only you and the state knows that fe. 198402234214 == Jane Kowalski - so all websites need to do in order to verify age is require that PESEL number and then pass it to another organization that is trusted to send snail mail to the person owning the PESEL number. The company only knows the number (not the data associated to it) the special organization knows the address. Then the organization sends (via snail mail) token to verify in WWW service to the owner of the number (theoretically only the owner is entitled to read his own snail mail).

Of course it would be more expensive than just online registration (by few factors). But it depends on scale - if sending snail mail letter costs you $0.1 and on average you earn $10 on an user and 1/5 registered confirms tokens it is still viable.

That is how our biggest auction site operates (something like eBay) - but they need to verify the real adress and person, not the age. And it somehow works. :)

So I think that there may be reasonable ways.

Re:what does this accomplish

[tonyr1988]

Why would you want your Xanga to be under someone else's name, e-mail address, birthday, and everything else that you aren't?

That's only for old men on MySpace.

Re:what does this accomplish

[WeblionX]

So, logically, pornography websites that checks the user's age should be commended on their help of teaching kids basic subtraction? Obviously this means we can cut the education budget since these websites will pick up the slack. Brilliant!

Re:what does this accomplish

[fm6]

Basically the FTC is saying that Xanga needs to make sure the kids are smart enough to lie in 2 different places (both by checking the box saying that they are over 13 and entering a fake date of birth), and because they didn't do that they should have to pay a fine.

In other words, Xanga was negligent because they failed to implement a safeguard that is known to be useless. The main purpose of this fine seems to be to allow the FTC to claim that they're doing everything they can to protect children. And, technically speaking, they are!

Re:what does this accomplish

[kenj0418]

> If, as you admit, there is no reasonable way for a website to enforce minimum-age restrictions, then the law is unjust and should not be upheld.

This isn't about kids lying and saying they are 18 to view porn. This is kids saying their true age (or never being asked), and some company ignoring privacy and marketing and rules that limit how they can track and market to young children.

Go to http://www.budweiser.com/default.asp -- The first question you're asked is your birthday. If you're not 21 they send you a site for Anheuser-Busch theme parks instead of one about the beer.

Go to http://www.nickjr.com/ -- A popup will (try to) appear for a survey -- If you say you're under 13, the survey ends and the popup closes.

Re:what does this accomplish

[DragonWriter]

But of course, the bigger issue is why the FTC and Xanga have to be parents to these kids.

Because:

1. people who can't be bothered to raise their own children want government to do it for them, and
2. busybodies who want to tell other people how to raise their children want to use government as the the tool to compel compliance.

Re:what does this accomplish

[Anonymous Coward]

Allowed HTML
<b> <i> <p> <br> <a> <ol> <ul> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <em> <strong> <tt> <blockquote> <div> <ecode>

Might I suggest the use of "<b>"?

Re:what does this accomplish

[takeya]

Most porno sites require a credit card to register.. which you can not have in your own name until age 18 (in general)

Re:what does this accomplish

[QuaZar666]

well in the states we have what is called a social security number, but due to people stealing social security number, we do not give it out without good reason. If some site asked me for my social security number, I most likely would not give it out and go somewhere else, most likely some site in europe which doesn't have crazy laws that protect people from themselves.

Re:what does this accomplish

[ubergamer1337]

Your sexist education plan will only educate the men, however...

Re:what does this accomplish

[ModernGeek]

A 15 year old could get a state ID, and they could somehow implement it into each states system. Each state could have a database of State ID and Drivers Lisc numbers to add a level of identification online.

Re:what does this accomplish

[Anonymous Coward]

> A 15 year old would not have a drivers license, a credit card, or any other indentification.

When I was 15, I had a permit (which was valid state identification)...

But point taken. And yes, there's no way in hell I'm giving a website my credit card number, ssn, or anything of that sort just so I can blog...

Re:what does this accomplish

[Korin43]

What's the point of this anyway? I've been pretending I've been 18 online since I discovered the internet. You really think anyone has ever cared about those stupid "are you 13 (or in some cases 18) years of age or older?" (And for the record, not everything that "requires" you to be 18 is porn)

Re:what does this accomplish

[JackieBrown]

"Everyone who wanted to register had to check a box saying that A) They were over 13, and B) they read the terms of service."

I understand expecting your point A but expecting someone under 13 to read a terms of service. I can't remember the last one I actually read

Re:what does this accomplish

[Anonymous Coward]

This post proves the need for a "+1 Reality Is Fucking Scary" mod.

Re:what does this accomplish

[Cramer]

You obviously haven't thought about this for very long... If I give my PESEL to a web site to verify who I am, then THEY would also know my number. For example, my name is "foo" and my number is "42". I know my number and the state, who assigned that number in the first place, knows that number. If I give my name as "foo" to Xanga and they ask for my PESEL, then they will also know my number once I've been confirmed. Xanga won't immediately know "foo" is "42" until some state agency, ultimately, confirms it. But, the instant my identity is confirmed, Xanga will also know my PESEL. At such time, the PESEL becomes useless for identification because someone else (lots of someone else's actually) can now pass the same identity check as if they were me. (It's called 'identity theft'.)

Re:what does this accomplish

[arose]

What he described doesn't require PESEL to be secret, in fact I doubt the Polish would be stupid enough to use a number you give left and right (if it's anything like the Latvian version) as the sole mechanism for identification, that's what the snail mail he mentioned is for--the PESEL in this case only serves as a "hash" for a snail mail address.

Re:what does this accomplish

[RexRhino]

Or, how about this: Personal networking sites moves outside the U.S. ... And then the sites don't have to give a fuck about verifying anybody!

The side effect of this law is that:
1. Verification will be pointless when the myspace-like-sites move overseas!
2. America will cease to be a place to run a web based company.

Of course, the long term effect of these laws is that it will be easier to exploit kids, and we will be sabatoging our own economy. But at least politicians will be seen as "doing something".

Re:what does this accomplish

[kosmosik]

> For example, my name is "foo" and my number is "42". I know my number
> and the state, who assigned that number in the first place, knows
> that number. If I give my name as "foo" to Xanga and they ask for
> my PESEL, then they will also know my number once I've been confirmed.

But what is the problem with that some site will know your name and PESEL?

> Xanga won't immediately know "foo" is "42" until some state agency,
> ultimately, confirms it. But, the instant my identity is confirmed,
> Xanga will also know my PESEL. At such time, the PESEL becomes useless
> for identification because someone else (lots of someone else's actually)
> can now pass the same identity check as if they were me. (It's called 'identity theft'.)

So Xanga is a website that imediately steals your identity? Why you wanted to use it in the first place?

Re:what does this accomplish

[Khyber]

Credit card companies don't check your age. I've had a VISA Gold card since I was 14. Imagine the fun I had at the expense of that company! Hell, I think they've got pre-pay cards that ANY kid can buy at the local Wal-Mart nowdays, so a credit card for verification means precisely jack shit, and has for me for the past 10 years.

Re:what does this accomplish

[Anonymous Coward]

You think it would have been clearer in bold?

Re:what does this accomplish

[thej1nx]

Indeed.

Now you can rest easy that xanga has *tried* to stop the kids, and they simply lied about the age and signed on anyways.

Because a false illusion of security seems to work wonders for USA these days. No need to monitor your kids or educate them about the hazards, which would have prevented the problem to begin with. Let us pretend that the kids will now all see that how well their honesty is paying off, and they will never ever think of lying about their age.

Yes. No need to check how they are using their online access, once they can't create sites on xanga.com ... or once they can't create custom chat rooms in yahoo chat. Ofcourse no sexual predators would ever enter the normal chat rooms. Perish the thought.

Now they are finally safe. Hurrah!

Re:what does this accomplish

[thej1nx]

Here is a workable solution.

Charge any parents that allow their kids to access internet unmonitored, with reckless child endagerment. Send the parents to Jail if their kid falls pay to a Sexual predator.

Then watch how quickly the problem vanishes.

Re:what does this accomplish

[thej1nx]

Sorry. Spelling correction :

Send the parents to Jail if their kid falls prey to a Sexual Predator.

Re:what does this accomplish

[thej1nx]

So Xanga is a website that imediately steals your identity? Why you wanted to use it in the first place?

because your logically flawed question missed one thing.

He doesn't minds using it, if they don't have access to his identity in the first place. Same reason you would use hundreds of sites like say slashdot, without caring whether or not they are capable of stealing your SSN.

Because they don't have access to your SSN in the first place.

Re:what does this accomplish

[thej1nx]

I'd be interested to hear from people who own or run sites like Xanga on what they think about their responsibilities And I'd be interested in hear from parents who allow their kids unmonitored online access on what they think about their responsibilties.

Simpler solution. Penalize any parents who are found to have allowed unmonitored net access to a minor, hevaily.

If their kids fall prey to some Sexual Predator, send both the offendor and such parents to Jail.

Let us quickly make this a law! Won't anyone think of the Children ?!!!

Re:what does this accomplish

[mapkinase]

How about this?

1. People who have little trust from the government to apply a proper control of the their children (the same government can interfere "like this" in the family affairs) rightfully want government also to take proper care of the kids.
2. Responsible people who do not want THEIR OWN kids to be bullied by kids of the idiots.

Re:what does this accomplish

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. No need to check how they are using their online access, once they can't create sites on xanga.com ... or once they can't create custom chat rooms in yahoo chat. Ofcourse no sexual predators would ever enter the normal chat rooms. Perish the thought.

No, of course not. Because the #1 most dangerous sexual predator in any child's life can simply enter his kid's bedroom when Mommy's asleep. No need for the internet at all.

Of course, we prefer not to think about that particular risk, because it's so much more comfortable assuming that only strangers pose dangers. They're probably all illegal immigrants, too. Or at least have a different skin color or follow a different belief system. Not people like us. We could never be monsters.

Re:what does this accomplish

[Haeleth]

Go to http://www.budweiser.com/default.asp -- The first question you're asked is your birthday. If you're not 21 they send you a site for Anheuser-Busch theme parks instead of one about the beer.

But if you go to http://www.budweiser.co.uk/, the birthday checker only requires you to be 18. National laws don't really interact very well with an international internet.

(Why are honest under-21s not supposed even to read about beer, anyway? That's just plain silly. These birthday checks are one of the most pointless things ever invented.)

Re:what does this accomplish

[Haeleth]

Or, how about this: Personal networking sites moves outside the U.S. ... And then the sites don't have to give a fuck about verifying anybody!

Yeah, because that's working really well for the gambling sites, isn't it?

Re:what does this accomplish

[thej1nx]

I wish I had mod points to mod you up.

I can agree 100% with you here. The first natural target for most sexual predators would be children in their own relations. Children they are naturally trusted with and have easy access to.Or how about even babysitters?

It is amazingly common for parents to trust their kids to others, just because they "know" them. Not surprisingly, most of such cases go unreported despite years of abuse, thanks to a desire to not to bring disrepute to "family name" or because the abuser if your own brother or some such close relative, or simple unwillingness to believe that your own relative/latest boyfriend might be doing this to your kids.

It is only the external threats that worry us. Which is a mistake.

Re:what does this accomplish

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been using fake birthdates nowadays, and I'm well over 18. I've just gotten too lazy to pick out my actual birthdate. Eh, Jan 1, sometime in the 70s, close enough.

Re:what does this accomplish

[TheGreek]

Or, how about this: Personal networking sites moves outside the U.S. ... And then the sites don't have to give a fuck about verifying anybody!

Yeah, because that's working really well for the gambling sites, isn't it?

I wasn't aware that you funded your Xanga account from a US-based bank.

Re:what does this accomplish

[compro01]

and what about the multitudes of free stuff? sure, most is not real good, but there are many gems, and anyway, most youngsters couldn't tell the differance.

Re:what does this accomplish

[IthnkImParanoid]

No, we just need to encourage women to look at more porn. Two birds with one stone, really.

Re:what does this accomplish

[takeya]

They aren't obeying the law, that's all.

It's like the gas station that sells beer or cigarettes to kids. It'll always be there...

Re:what does this accomplish

[RexRhino]

What are you talking about? most online gambling is overseas, and it is super easy to gamble online... Where you trying to be sarcastic? Or where you stating a fact (that online gambling exists, free and unrestricted, outside the U.S.)?

Sorry man, look at how many TVs are made in the United States... Look at what happened to the U.S. auto industry... look at what happened to U.S. textile manufacturing... If you don't think it is possible for an industry to just get up and leave the U.S., you are kidding yourself! In fact, online buisness is EVEN EASIER to move oversease than manufacturing.

Believe me, stupid legislation like this hurts U.S. buisness (and people who are or would be employed by such buisnesses). American lawmakers are absolutly arrogant when it comes to their belief that buisnesses won't just move outside the United States in response to crippling legislation.

Not much

[Iron (III) Chloride]

I think that other sites may be more careful and attempt to at least appear to follow COPPA, but that truly little will change. As will all age-laws, they are not entirely comprehensive as many under-13 year olds are much more intelligent/mature than others.

Be a dog

[Anonymous Coward]

'cause on the internet nobody knows that you're a dog.

Children have no rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Thus, they have no rights online. Therefore, this should not be filed under YRO.

End of message.

Re:Children have no rights

[m0rph3us0]

Children have less rights, and even as an adult your rights in the US are curtailed by age. Being President and being able to drink just to name two common examples.

Re:Children have no rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Children have no rights

That's right. That's why my father always asked me to do these stupid things; "Hey you don't have rights! ONLY OBLIGATIONS AND DUTIES!" when he used to whip me while I was working to bring in the money as a 10yo. "When you grow up you can have your own kids who have no rights", he used to say. Oh the fond times we had.

The older you get, the more rights you get and the less obligations, because you're more human when you're older. When you're a child, you're just an oversized spermazoid that's nagging at your parents head constantly for toys and food and love and stuff... Which you only deserve when you're a REAL human person.

You could use children to heat you at night, by burning them in the stove, they don't have rights, they can't go to court! Ha! and you can make plenty more of them... LEGALLY! and free...

Re:Children have no rights

[mdwh2]

Well children obviously do have rights - but more to the point, what about the rights of someone hosting a website?

Re:Children have no rights

[Anonymous Coward]

You could use children to heat you at night, by burning them in the stove, they don't have rights, they can't go to court! Ha! and you can make plenty more of them... LEGALLY! and free...

Shut up!!! That's not true!!!! That's completely not true!

Everyone knows that bodies don't burn very well.

The impact it'll have:

[smellsofbikes]

Sites will move their hosting out of the US, and their executives won't visit the US.

More realistically, social networking sites will add more verification layers (that don't work) for greater plausible deniability, and those that think they can, will start requiring credit card info.

Re:The impact it'll have:

[westlake]

social networking sites will add more verification layers (that don't work) for greater plausible deniability, and those that think they can, will start requiring credit card info.

I think you'll find that an experienced trial attorney does not share your innocent faith in "plausible deniability" as a defense.

Re:The impact it'll have:

[smellsofbikes]

My innocent faith is that both sides will have very expensive lawyers, at which point it's quite easy to make a good case for anything either side wants.

Am I over 13 yes yes yes

[VEGETA_GT]

most of these sites just ask are u over 13, or over 18/19/21 depending on the state you live in. All you do is click yes, and you are in. What kid in there right mind well get there parents premision to be on a social site for fun, I never would when I was a kid.

Re:Am I over 13 yes yes yes

[bunions]

None, that's not the issue. Apparently Xanga has been doing exactly what any rational person would do in the face of a pointless law: ignoring it completely.

n its complaint, the FTC alleged that Xanga, a rival to the popular MySpace.com, allegedly permitted creation of 1.7 million accounts by users who submitted birthdays indicating they were under 13.

It's a shame that someone will actually have to pay a fine for this bullshit, but really, they shoulda known.

Re:Am I over 13 yes yes yes

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Apparently Xanga has been doing exactly what any rational person would do in the face of a pointless law: ignoring it completely.

Apparently you have never been part of a large organization that has faced a lawsuit.

Xanga should have at least have the common sense to reject registrations under 13. If it's a pointless law, put something subversive but legal like "Please enter a birth date before 1993." Civil disobedience is fine for individuals who can go to jail and then write a book about it. It's not good corporate policy though.

Re:Am I over 13 yes yes yes

[bunions]

I understand that - I didn't mean to imply that it was a good idea on their part, I just didn't want to sound like I thought the law was anything more than a pantsload.

Re:Am I over 13 yes yes yes

[Lehk228]

they don't even have to do that, just disable the name/address/location input fields and retroactively blank those fields for anyone under 13

It depends...

[iPodUser]

"What impact, if any, do you think this will have on other community sites that may not always follow the COPPA statutes?" I think it will depend on how popular the sites are - if a site has only a modest number of users, it can probably count on a low profile to stay safe; the larger communities will probably make an effort to comply due to their higher visibility.

How does one verify their age?

[BlahMatt]

How exactly is a site supposed to enforce this kind of agreement? On the TOS it says that you must be over 13 to sign up for this site. Beyond that age verification gets costly and irritating. I for one am not going to give my credit card number to a site simply for age verification. AND, if you are over 13, there is no guarantee that you will be able to prove that over the internet.

What we actually need is fewer lawsuits from the FTC and have the FTC put their money into a viable and secure way to verify age over the internet. While it won't stop everyone, it will stop many.

Proof?

[HockeyPuck]

How do you prove that a kid got his parent's permission?

Have your parent click here [__] to proceed.

Re:Proof?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

My sister once joined a site that required a mailing or faxing of a permission form. I don't know how they would verify that, as much as how they would verify that someone is over 13.

Re:Proof?

[bunions]

if it's on Rainbow Brite or My Pretty Pony stationary, or if it's written in crayon, you are denied. Otherwise, you're in.

Re:Proof?

[jZnat]

Oh, that's the standard COPPA form that uses ancient analogue methods of verification.

Re:Proof?

[Ksevio]

I know the default for phpBB forums is a basic message and if you click the "I am under 13" link, then it gives you a form that the you're suppose to mail or fax to the administrator of the board.

Re:Proof?

[dr_dank]

Throw out all submissions signed by Epstein's mother.

Re:Proof?

[Anonymous Coward]

> if it's on Rainbow Brite or My Pretty Pony stationary, or if it's written in crayon, you are denied. Otherwise, you're in.

Won't somebody please think of President Bush! :(

Re:Proof?

[Digz]

Back in the Freenet days, Cleveland Freenet had something similar - but I think you had to make a payment with a check for the account. Of course, that's been many moons ago - so someone who remembers things better can clarify.

Won't someone think of the children? QWZX

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's face it, our society coddles children far too much, parents included. We should have laws that protect the privacy of kids -- but the other way. Kids should have the fundamental human right to access any information they want. Kids should be trusted to know for themselves what's good and what's not. How else are they going to learn?

It should be considered child abuse for parents or anyone to intentionally keep kids away from whatever they want to access. If they're old enough to want it, they're old enough to get it.

Re:Won't someone think of the children? QWZX

[FLEB]

Ahh, but children are stupid.

That is to say: they tend to be more gullible, have less life experience and less insight as to how they can be victimized, have less maturity and less self-control. Perhaps if the Internet were one-way, and kids couldn't input their own information, it would be more acceptable, but we're trusting the people we remind not to take candy from a random goon in a van not to give out their address and personal information on a messageboard to someone they've been talking to for a significant amount of time.

That said, goatse et al should be part of the Internet Welcome Kit for the whole family. Toughen 'em up a bit.

Re:Won't someone think of the children? QWZX

[bky1701]

Well, if you are smart enough to bypass the kiddie block (not that it's hard, mind you) then I'd say you are at least cunning enough to survive. Just being over 13 doesn't mean you are smart. Maybe we need an IQ test and not an age test, eh?

Parents Responsibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

If sites are held accountable for verifying the age of users (a very difficult task) what should the parents be responsible for when thier child bypasses measures in place?

"allowed"

[nurb432]

this seems sort of silly. What if the kid lies? Do they need to start collecting DNA and verify against the national database? Hope that no adult shares their account with a kid, or a stolen CC is used?

Take this far enough and NO site will able to function taht has any age requirement. Oh wait, but its for the kids, and can raise taxes.. lets go push this thru!

Childs right to privacy?

[nurb432]

I thought they had none, according to the last case i heard of the government/school searching students at will. " children do not have the same rights as adults "...

Lets make up our minds, ok?

Re:Childs right to privacy?

[ScaryFroMan]

That's at school. Otherwise, children have most rights, including that of privacy.

Re:Childs right to privacy?

[ubergamer1337]

We talked about this in Civics once. Its not that kids have no rights, it's that as long as you are in school the administration has parental rights over you, as defined by the government.

Re:Childs right to privacy?

[bky1701]

Newbie, the government can't make up something they don't have.

Re:Childs right to privacy?

[zenthax]

Actually it is quite simple...children have rights whenever it is convenient to and at all other times they don't have any rights.

Re:Childs right to privacy?

[Elevator_Inspector]

Um.. watch the news much?

I don't really see the problem here

[pcgamez]

From the article, the following happened:

People were first presented with a question asking if they were over 13. If the users clicked yes, they proceeded to the registration page. The registration page included fields for birthdays. People who had lied on the first part could then enter their age. The form did not automatically reject users whose birthdates were not at least 13 years prior. In this case it looks like (IANAL) Xanda DID comply with the law. The FTC seems to be punishing them for making it "too easy" to get around it. This is where I have a problem. Where does it end? The FTC could just as easily say requiring a CC (to verify age) is too easy because they could borrow someone else's. There doesn't seem to be a hard line for where reasonable precautions start and end.

"According to the Federal Trade Commission, children who wanted to open a Xanga account didn't even have to show that level of ingenuity. Children merely had to check a box confirming they were over 13, according to FTC lawyer Mary Engle -- even if they'd previously entered a birth date indicating they were under 13. "

Sure, not kids can just as easily lie like they do on myspace and put a different birth year.

Re:I don't really see the problem here

[FLEB]

If it starts with "F" and it ends with "C", chances are it's going to involve fuzzy definitions, arbitrary and variable interpretations, and gigantic monetary fines. It just comes with the territory.

Misguided, overzealous propaganda

[adf2006]

What more could they have done? They asked for age verification upon sign-up. No parent is going to give their thirteen year old child a credit card for the use of age verification on a site like that.

The policy makes sense, parents should know what their pre-teen children are doing. The problem is that this is the parents responsibility, not the website providing the service. It's one thing for a movie theater or porn-shop to let minors in, it's on their premises. These kids are (mostly) accessing the internet from their own home, where the parents should be able to monitor their activities.

There's only so much that can be done and putting a million dollar fine on Xanga is a completely ridiculous way to try and make the government look like it's actually doing something to help the problem. They're laying a huge portion of the blame in the wrong camp.

There is a problem, this is clearly an overzealous attempt at creating an appearance of action to hide the fact that there is simply nothing effective that they can really do. Xanga is the unfortunate victim.

Re:Misguided, overzealous propaganda

[mgabrys_sf]

Not foolproof, but I thought the idea of hitting pop-culture within a certain age-timeframe was a neat trick when introduced in "Leisure Suit Larry" years ago.

Re:Misguided, overzealous propaganda

[element-o.p.]

It's one thing for a movie theater or porn-shop to let minors in, it's on their premises. These kids are (mostly) accessing the internet from their own home, where the parents should be able to monitor their activities.

Exactly. Not to mention that at a movie theater or porn shop the owner/operator/minimum-wage-clerk-at-the-counter can *see* that the person requesting said services is under age. While I suppose it is technically possible to make it a requirement to use a webcam to record anyone wishing to sign up for a new account (which would then be reviewed before the request was granted) I don't see this becoming a trend among social networking sites any time soon...imagine the logistics of trying to review a million teenagers' enrollment interviews.

Even worse, what with the crap on youtube, I'd hate to think what...ahem...creative...footage the webcams would capture <shudder>

The going rate on Children.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, it only costs $1,000,000 to ignore child privacy? Myspace must be pissed with itself. At fines like that, how can they afford NOT to allow 11 year old cam whores on their site? They complied and implemented better child protections, only to loose their competitive edge and see their competitors surge ahead in advertising revenues from "Bratz" dolls and voyeur equipment companies,

(an after thought) ...and trial Lawyer groups. "Have you been molested by someone you met online? Have you molested someone you met online? Call the offices of XYZ, and we will sue everybody over it, cause thats who should be responsible in the place of deadbeat parents and poor upbringings. EVERYBODY ELSE"

Rupert Murdoch this morning, "Damn! Damn! Think of the children! Only 1-mil upfront, and we could have cornered that market! Think of the children, I say!"

What effect will the websites have on the law?

[xiphoris]

What effect will the websites have on the law? That's the question I would ask.

Laws like this are clearly unenforceable. More importantly, it is not morally the website's job to police the people who visit it. It's the job of the parents. Legislators don't seem to win their positions based on campaigns of parental responsibility, however. The trend seems to be "blame everyone else for your kid's problems".

Look at the crap going on involving Grand Theft Auto: someone makes a game modification to show a tit, a tit that isn't even available without modifying the game, and tons of legislators go apeshit about how it's inappropriate for children. Clearly these people aren't worried about justice, and instead are worried about winning the votes of emotional parents, the Security Moms.

A reasonable argument can be made that, for example, liquor stores have a duty to prevent children from buying alcohol in them. However, you must also consider that it is extremely easy and reliable to verify the age of store patrons. No analogy exists online -- it is impossible.

Expecting websites to perform such policing is unquestionably unfair, and I suspect that the courts will agree. The law might have effect on some websites in the short term. In the long term, the websites will have the law overturned as unreasonable.

We just have to hope that the justices who hear these cases really have an interest in justice, unlike the legislators who passed these braindead laws in the first place.

America needs to raise its own damn children (and I say this as an American)

Re:What effect will the websites have on the law?

[bunions]

> America needs to raise its own damn children (and I say this as an American)

Yes and no. The US is really schitzophrenic about this. On one hand it's hyperprotective about ludicrous bullshit (cf: GTA) and on the other hand it won't even provide decent free lunches to poor kids. It's sort of baffling.

Re:What effect will the websites have on the law?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but GTA exists, free lunches don't.

I keed, I keed!

Re:What effect will the websites have on the law?

[Mad Marlin]

Clearly these people aren't worried about justice, and instead are worried about winning the votes of emotional parents, the Security Moms.

Do we see now why letting women vote was a bad idea ... ;-)

Re:What effect will the websites have on the law?

[raehl]

it won't even provide decent free lunches to poor kids. It's sort of baffling.

I don't understand the source of your confusion. The problem is there are too many children living below the poverty line. If you don't feed them, that number goes down. Seems like the natural solution to me.

Re:What effect will the websites have on the law?

[frank_adrian314159]

On one hand it's hyperprotective about ludicrous bullshit and on the other hand it won't even provide decent free lunches to poor kids. It's sort of baffling

Well, duhhhh... One of them looks like it's protecting children and the other would cost us money. Still baffled?

Re:What effect will the websites have on the law?

[mooingyak]

Wildly inefficient. They might steal food from other people before they starve.

Re:What effect will the websites have on the law?

[westlake]

Look at the crap going on involving Grand Theft Auto: someone makes a game modification to show a tit, a tit that isn't even available without modifying the game, and tons of legislators go apeshit about how it's inappropriate for children.

Hot Coffee was not a tit. It was button-mashing sex play that could be unlocked in both the PC and console game There is no third-party content in this so-called mod, which was Rockstar's original and disastrous PR spin.

Rockstar came into this fight with a reputation for pushing the limits of public tolerance of the gangster gane genre. GTA was coining money, but Rockstar had few friends outside the gaming community. It could not escape the suspicion that it was once again testing the waters, covertly introducing AO content into an M rated game.

it is extremely easy and reliable to verify the age of store patrons. No analogy exists online -- it is impossible.

The scale and success of e-commerce suggests otherwise. Registration through a parent's credit card or a kid's own debit card is an obvious solution.

Parental controls in the OS or the browser are another. Registration might be bound to a particular computer and a particular account. It won't matter if a kid has fake ID if he is forbidden from entering any ID.

More importantly, it is not morally the website's job to police the people who visit it.

The tavern owner may not be morally obligated to keep kids away from the bar, but if he wants to keep his license he'd better find a way to do it, and make it convincing to a judge.

Re:What effect will the websites have on the law?

[oyenstikker]

They could provide decent free lunches to kids, but the kids wouldn't eat them. You could provide a million different dishes based on rice, pasta, and vegetables. But the kids will only eat pizza, tacos, and chicken fingers, which are far more expensive.

I don't understand why the schools are feeding the kids anyways. Let the parents give the kids food. Those who can't afford it get WIC. Get rid of the cafeteria, the food service, the lunch ladies. Give the money you saved to CPA to deal with the children whose parents don't feed them.

At what point did people lose the ability to take care of themselves and the desire to directly take care of others?

Re:What effect will the websites have on the law?

[strikethree]

A reasonable argument can be made that, for example, liquor stores have a duty to prevent children from buying alcohol in them. However, you must also consider that it is extremely easy and reliable to verify the age of store patrons. No analogy exists online -- it is impossible.

It is extremely easy to keep a 13 year old from buying liquor, but how about a 17 year old with a good fake ID?

strike

Re:What effect will the websites have on the law?

[jlowe]

B.S. You don't know what the hell you are talking about. I work in the school system as a psychologist, and one of the schools I go to has 80% of their student population on free lunch (and breakfast). Kids who NEED free or reduced lunch, get it. I am not arguing with your point in general, but don't make up stuff that is blatantly inaccurate.

Re:What effect will the websites have on the law?

[bunions]

A fun thing to think about sometimes before you post is how some places have different policies, laws, and practices than the places you might be used to!

Re:What effect will the websites have on the law?

[bunions]

> But the kids will only eat pizza, tacos, and chicken fingers, which are far more expensive.

They'll eat them if they're hungry.

> I don't understand why the schools are feeding the kids anyways.

Because some kids have parents who are too poor to afford decent food for their children.

> At what point did people lose the ability to take care of themselves

When they became very poor? It's not like this is a new phenomenon.

> and the desire to directly take care of others?

Yeah, you're got a point. This "charity" thing is a pretty new concept, I guess we should just give it time.

Re:What effect will the websites have on the law?

[jlowe]

Considering the school lunch program was nationally established by Truman in 1946 (http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch), and that I am in the USA, I think my post is quite accurate. Again, you make posts without any idea of what you are talking about.

Re:What effect will the websites have on the law?

[bunions]

The problem was a local one and while it obeyed the letter of the law, the upshot was that the local cost of living was so high that poor people did not qualify for free lunches - if you'd been poor enough to qualify, you'd be homeless. The resolution was pretty bad too: kids had to bring in all kinds of reciepts and stand in special lines and all kinds of stupidity.

What About the parents?

[Swordless Samurai]

I know sites like Xanga and MySpace should provide safeguards to the kids, But what about the parents? Why can't we sue them for not protecting their children? Why is it always the large corperation's fault, and never the parents?

Re:What About the parents?

[Jason1729]

Because the US is all about avoiding blame and responsibility. It's why there's so many punitive lawsuits and lawyers in the country.

Re:What About the parents?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, lets think about this reasonably:
How much time would a... lets say... 12 year old have to spend trolling around myspace, find someone (or by found by someone? How do these things even happen?) build a relationship, trust, work out details for meeting, etc.... 4 hours Total? 5 Hours? 10 Hours? 3 hours a day? I can't believe it would happen in one afternoon.
In any case, apparently during this ENTIRE FLIPPIN time, no parent was EVER remotely aware of the childs activities in the least bit (otherwise this would imply tacit consent - if I see my kid cutting off his toes and I do nothing, I am definitely an involved party)

And lets not forget the age here: under 13. Does ANYONE remember what they were even like at that age? Certainly politicians do not. I sure as hell would have *^%*ed myself up pretty bad with out at least a little paternal guidance and RESOLVE- I didn't even know what legislation was, I certainly wasn't going to heed it when I was disobeying my parents.

Re:What about the parents?

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Okay this is getting on my nerves.. It really is because Slashdot makes no bloody sense!

We act like we weren't children and we'll be the ultimate parents. We'll know where our kids are 24/7 and have RFID tags in their penis to stop them getting anyone pregnant or whatever magic pixie dust solution it is.

50 years ago kids did stuff they shouldn't, 1000 years ago they did, even today they do. That's because it's what kids do. If they can't get on Xanga/MySpace/whatever at home they will find a way to do it. Beg, borrow or steal you'll not stop a kid who desires something you try to keep out of his hands.

We bitch about over-protective soccer mums and then act like every bad kid is bad because the parents didn't do "the right thing". SHUT UP ABOUT IT! Some kids are just bad, some kids are just nerds, some kids want to screw their mother. That is how life is, everyone is different and while on mass people are generally okay that does not mean there are no bad apples and "parenting" can fix the ones that are.

Some times it's not possible to babysit your kids every second of the day. You have other things to do and hope for the best, most of the time it works out and you get away with it but once in a while it doesn't. This is not bad parenting, this is being a HUMAN BEING. Maybe we should hand-cuff parents and kids together, after all it's not like mothers and fathers need to pee any more, so it's fine if their kids follow them every where right?

I know this is rather trollish but damn it, you guys need to get off your high horses and accept that parents are meer mortals just like us! They can't be in 6 places at once and some times the greater evil comes before going Big brother on their 12 year old reading e-mails from their friends about how awesomely cool Ninja turtles was this week.

Re:What about the parents?

[Locke2005]

Big deal! I let my 5 year old surf the net without supervision! Of course, she can't read, so she is unlikely to get into very involved discussions with predators... the problem is not that predators can make contact with underage persons online, the problem is that underage persons are stupid enough to arrange real world meetings with people they met online!

Re:What about the parents?

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Um....I don't know about you, but it sounds like you have never been a parent. It's incredibly EASY to figure out where kids are. Hell I am 35 and my mom still knows what I do. I know what my son does and where he goes. While I will agree that it's impossible to know exactly where they are every second of the day, it's pretty easy to control WHAT they do in your house:

1. NO computer in their room until they are 18. Sorry.....doesn't happen. Not saying they can have thier own, it just WILL NOT be in their room.

2. No computer use period if one of us isn't either home or awake. Break the rules and I will know (I will use Linux and check the access logs....).

3. Any violation of said rules will result in their computer turning into a server for dad's use.

Now I am a geek....things will be different in my house because I know how to do these things. If I didn't, I would only take away the log thing (as I would not know how to do it...thank god I am a geek).

This sounds draconian, but even I did not know enough to stay away from things like this until I was about 20 believe it or not. I remember when I was 20, I met a girl online and went to go meet her at her house. Found out she was 15. She told me she was 19. I counselled her a little and then left a little wiser. If I didn't quiz her on her real age, I could have went to jail and been labelled a sexual predator. From then on, I knew better. The bad thing that may have happened if the roles were reversed and I wasn't a nice guy. Kids simply do not have the where with all to understand how unsafe talking to people online can be especially if they go from the virtual world to meat space.

Oh I accept that at certain times, they will be out of my control. However, it's really easy to just meet the parents of thier best friends. Even simply a phone call would be more then enough for me to get what is going to happen at the friends house. It's surpising to me how many people take the stance that you can't know everything about your child. It must be beneath parents to talk to their kids! By just talking to my son, I knew his friends were Garrick and Nicholas and by the end of the school year, I knew thier parents pretty well and all I did was talk to them. I'd have let him go to either of his best friends house.

It's ok to have friends outside of your kids lives, but it's best to try to make friends with the parents of any of your kids best friends.

Just little things like this makes it pretty easy to know what your kid is doing and when. Its called parental responsibility.

Re:What about the parents?

[Turn-X Alphonse]

The whole Slashdot stance on "No puter untill you're 18" thing makes me laugh.. Most of us grew up on them, yet we wish to restrict our kids doing the same thing.. how does that work?

And again I shall point out "Kids tell their parents jackshit". I don't care how close you are to your kids very rarely will a kid tell the truth to the point of getitng in trouble unless he really really must. Sorry if you can't remember your childhood but I can and I know that no kid is ever going to stick to the rules they find unjust or care for your rules the second they are outside your ability to track/punish.

Re:What about the parents?

[tweek]

Read his rule more closely. No computer in the BEDROOM until the kid's 18. I plan on doing the same thing with my children.

I'm of the opinion that any computer a child uses should be in a commonly visible place. There's no better impetus to behaving than having everyone be able to see what you do.........for the most part ;)

Re:What about the parents?

[thej1nx]

Some times it's not possible to babysit your kids every second of the day.

Yes it isn't. We agree.

However... lots of parents in USA, have guns in their houses. Or liquor. Or knives. You are supposed to keep these safely locked away, out of the reach of children. Correct ? Because if you don't, and something goes wrong, you get charged with reckless child endangerment and sent to Jail possibly. At no point are you asked to monitor the kids all the time. Only to keep the dangerous stuff away from their access. Isn't it ?

So what exactly is so difficult about adopting the same attitude towards computers and restricting access to it as well? I mean *besides* being lazy and incompetent? If the internet is as dangerous as you guys argue it is, surely it should be treated in a similar manner ?

Since when does it become the gun manufacturer's responsbility to build in all sorts of special elecronic complex gadgetry to verify the age of the user ?

If *you* carelessly leave a gun lying around a child, you should be sent to Jail. Similarly if you let your kid have unmonitored/unrestricted online access, you should be sent to Jail as well, if he falls prey to some pervert pedophile.

Much better solution.

Re:What about the parents?

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I grew up in a house with firearms, large knives and as much drink as I could of wanted to drink.

I know guns arn't play things so I didn't touch them.
I know knives are dangerous unless used correctly and never had a use for them.
I had no intrest in drink, so I never touched it.

People always assume the worst with kids and then wonder why they don't trust their parents.

I'm guessing your a troll because you clearly are insane or stupid. It's like going "Hey it was your fault you got raped, I mean why didn't you tie your vagina shut or something?"

Re:What about the parents?

[Tim C]

50 years ago kids did stuff they shouldn't, 1000 years ago they did, even today they do. That's because it's what kids do.

I agree, but with one slight correction - doing things they shouldn't is what people do. Kids just do it in more obvious, blatant ways that annoy more people and put themselves in more danger.

Re:What about the parents?

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I used to know a 13 year old girl who had the same rule. She'd sneak down at like 2am and log on AIM for a few hours.

Like I said, can't stop a kid who really wants it.

Re:What about the parents?

[Slashdot Parent]

Let me guess. Your kid is 10 years old or less (i.e. still does whatever you tell him).

Write back in 5 years and let us know how your little "rules" worked out for you.

You'll learn.

Re:What about the parents?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know knives are dangerous unless used correctly and never had a use for them.

How do you cut your food?

Re:What about the parents?

[Skynyrd]

I used to know a 13 year old girl who had the same rule. She'd sneak down at like 2am and log on AIM for a few hours.

Like I said, can't stop a kid who really wants it.

Right.
Remove the keyboard, mouse and monitor.

Look people - if you don't control your children, the feds will do it for you. Each and every one of us will pay at that point.

If you can't raise a child, don't have one.

Re:What about the parents?

[Skynyrd]

I know guns arn't play things so I didn't touch them.
I know knives are dangerous unless used correctly and never had a use for them.
I had no intrest in drink, so I never touched it.

Same here.
But it sounds like you're arguing that the Internet access needs to be moderated an governed by the feds once it's in your house. Guns, knives and booze are OK to have in the house, but Internet access isn't? Sorry, but I just don't understand your argument.

I also grew up with guns and booze in the house. I was taught to respect them, and not treat them as toys. If I had Internet access, it would have been handled in a similar manner.

How many parents lock the car keys away at night? Probably not too many, because there's consequences for stealing a car. Why should Internet access be any different?

Remember - we're talking about 12 year old children having unsupervised access to the Internet. If you can't keep a 12 year old away from the 'net in your own house, how can you trust them with anything else?

Re:What about the parents?

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Crossed wires. I'm saying you shouldn't restrict the internet untill they really do go out of line. Chatting on mysapce or yahoo or whatever is fine. But porn, buying illegal drugs and trying to meet someone in person is a no no.

That sort of thing basicly.

Re:What about the parents?

[Chanc_Gorkon]

The world is different now then it was when we were kids man. When I was in high school, the internet was not as wide spread. Computers typically did not even have a modem by default and you were lucky to even have one. By the time my 7 year old is in high school, computers may even be cheaper then they are now. With that said, I never said NO COMPUTERS til your 18....I said no unsupervised computer use until then. Big difference.

Re:What about the parents?

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Your 100 percent correct. MY goal is to NOT have the government make stupid laws that makes life harder on ME. If that meand doing MY JOB as a parent then that is what it means. The US does not need to be my sons nanny.

Re:What about the parents?

[Chanc_Gorkon]

In my house, I CAN stop them. There's various software even on Windows that will let me lock the computer. Hell I can add a password on the BIOS before I go to bed to prevent the rule breaking. I could also have (and should probably add one anyway) a security camera that has the PC in view. It is SO easy to prevent kids from doing the things you don't want them to do. Kids generally want your favor so you will buy them things like a iPod and what not. Kids also think they are being smart and they won't get caught. Mom and dad almost always caught me when I was doing something I should not. They were RESPONSIBLE, The problem now adays is parents have no friggin spines and they also don't want the responsibility. When a rule is broken, not only do you lock down the device that they broke the rule with but you also take away a priviledge(sometimes it's the same thing....other times it isn't). This is how I was raised. I love my parents for what they did to bring me up right. When I was a kid, my parents did not try to be my friend all of the time....sometimes they were my friend but other times they were the enemy. All of the time (including now) they were my parent.

Re:What about the parents?

[Anonymous Coward]

"RFID tags in their penis"

What if you don't have exactly one boy? Also, unless you are from West Virginia, how does putting an RFID tag in her brother help you keep track of the girl? If you are abandoning political correctness enough to say penis, you could say 'his penis.' Other things that you could say:

their penises (English plural)
their penes (snobby Latin plural)
their genitalia (most accurate)

"[T]heir penis" is the worst possible mix. You have the incompatible numbers (plural pronoun, single noun); the lack of accuracy given the possibility of a girl; the lack of specificity of "their."

Re:What about the parents?

[thej1nx]

I am actually all with you on that one, mate.

Thing is ... either you subscribe to the view that you can trust the kids or you don't.

Former renders this whole debate moot actually. But since the whole "ban internet" thing treats kids as complete idiots who must be protected by themselves, I would suggest making the parents answerable for any lapses, instead of blaming computer games or internet companies etc.

Not a troll, not insane and not stupid. Learn to comprehend the arguement please.

Only courts can fine I thought...

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Sounds like they settled with the FTC.

They should've fought, legal fees would very likely be less than $1M.

How much could a court fine them had they fought and lost? More than $1M?

Re:Only courts can fine I thought...

[vertinox]

They should've fought, legal fees would very likely be less than $1M.

IANAL but....

HAHAAHAAHAHAAHAH!

Re:Only courts can fine I thought...

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Even at $1K an hour, $1M will take a long time.

Look at the RIAA and MPAA they don't spend that much.

And as far as I know the FTC has NEVER, EVER, won a court judgement for any monetary damages for a COPPA violation. Not one penny.

All the payments have been settlements, every last one. Even Hersheys and Misses Fields.

Plus even if they spend over $1M being able to do business without interference would make them more money in the future.

Re:Only courts can fine I thought...

[Jack Sombra]

Trust me, court costs would be well over a million. You don't hire just "one lawer" to fight against the army of them that the FTC would toss at you, you would have to hire a army yourself, prefurably a better one too This is the problem with the western legal system, unless the case is a slam dunk one way or the other even before it hits the court in the majority of cases it does not come done to guilt or innocence but rather who has the better or more (or both) lawyer(s) Case like this would have cost them 10's of millions to fight, if neither side decided to appeal once first verdict came in, if they did sky would be the limit.

Re:Only courts can fine I thought...

[DragonWriter]

They should've fought, legal fees would very likely be less than $1M.

Fighting the FTC would have resulted in publicity for the fight, which would likely have led to pressure on schools and other places to block access to Xanga, which would have potentially cost them much more than the legal fees and expenses. Though I doubt it would cost them less than $1 million in legal expenses to fight it if the FTC was really serious.

Too wordy

[mgabrys_sf]

If you really want a sensationalist headline you need to tighten that baby up a bit.

Try:

"FTC Fines Xanga for Violating Kids"

That one is a nice head turner.

Simple Solution

[jvance]

DON'T COLLECT PERSONAL INFORMATION, STUPID!

Sheesh!

Yes, lameness filter, I want to yell.
Yes, lameness filter, I want to yell.
Yes, lameness filter, I want to yell.
Yes, lameness filter, I want to yell.
Yes, lameness filter, I want to yell.
Yes, lameness filter, I want to yell.
Yes, lameness filter, I want to yell.
Yes, lameness filter, I want to yell.
Yes, lameness filter, I want to yell.
Yes, lameness filter, I want to yell.

Re:Simple Solution

[HotBlackDessiato]

DON'T COLLECT PERSONAL INFORMATION, STUPID!

I agree, that's precisely the solution.

To test whether a site is collecting personal data, register as a 10 year old. If they won't let you in after that, they are less likely to be collecting personel data(god I'm niave).

So use a fake birthdate.

[Cybert4]

I have a fake birthdate (I'm over 21 anyway, but the real one can be used for identity theft). I also have a fake name and zip code (way away from where I am) handy. I want to correlate a good fake address and phone number for that too. Helps to always use the same thing. I don't see why kids can't do all the same thing.

Re:So use a fake birthdate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bart, is that you ?

Re:So use a fake birthdate.

[brajesh]

Homer, you there?

Re:So use a fake birthdate.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I have a fake birthdate (I'm over 21 anyway, but the real one can be used for identity theft).

Naturally. And what could be better, or easier to remember than 01-01-1970. The very moment time began!

Kids' Privacy is a top priority

[ajenteks]

From TA: "Protecting kids' privacy online is a top priority for America's parents, and for the FTC," FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras said in a statement. Apparently it's not enough of a priority to the parents with underage children signing up on Xanga, or these parents would be stepping in themselves.

Re:Kids' Privacy is a top priority

[Brett Buck]

The problem is that (many) parents are taking the tack that the "Nanny State" should do their jobs for them.

        Brett

Re:Kids' Privacy is a top priority

[ajenteks]

Yeah, it's really disheartening. There have been so many great examples of how sole reliance on the government for anything can be disastrous, be it protection from the big bad terrorists or natural occurrences, to border control. The idea that anyone would put their children's welfare in the like hands of the people who run the IRS and FEMA is just absurd.

What about the parents?

[Skynyrd]

Why are parents allowing their 12 year olds to surf the net without supervision?
It isn't the government's problem to solve - it belongs to the parents.

Of course, it's the US, so it'll never fall in the lap of the sperm & egg donor.

The irony if the COPPA

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ironic that because of this law, to "protect children's privacy", websites are REQUIRED BY LAW to get the age of thier visitors, while otherwise children would not be required to give this information.

COPPA does not exist to be a pain

[joily]

COPPA does not exist to be a pain, it exists as a way to help make sites that target tweens and children (intentionally or not) responsible for the content they are making public. It exists to protect children from having their personally identifiable info available in a public forum.

No one makes people enter into the business of social networking. Like any other business there are ethics and laws by which that business must abide. If a site is blatantly ignoring basic safeguards COPPA requires, they are breaking the law and should suffer the sanctions outlined under those laws.

Yes, parents should be the primary dispensers of the morals needed for their kids to navigate the sometimes age-inappropriate corners of the Internet. But if a site has an open journaling tool or has fields requesting information that would make a child easy to find and possibly hurt, that site DOES has an obligation (ethically and legally) to put the necessary hurdles in place to protect those children.

There are many levels of personal identification described in COPPA, all with different levels of verification needed. For example, if a child is signing up for a newsletter, no parental consent is needed. If their comments are not screened and made public, parental consent is needed.

There are many ways to verify parental consent. Credit card is one, 1-800 # is another, signed fax form is another. Once the parent agrees, anything the kid puts up is fair game. For more limited access, there is a new amendment to the act describing an email plus verification. The safeguards are actually not that hard, and many of those who target children specifically in their communities place much higher barriers to entry just to be sure.

Fines for COPPA violations are based on a per occurrence measurement.

And I am sure any of you who would like to donate your time or money to the exploration of more efficient and easier ways of verifiable parental consent would be greeted with open arms by the folks at the FTC.

Joi Podgorny
Director of Online Community
Star Farm Productions

Re:COPPA does not exist to be a pain

[bky1701]

Isn't there something called a "parent" that makes overbaring laws in this respect unneeded? Call this BS law does is make the lazy parents more lazy then before.

Re:COPPA does not exist to be a pain

[Anonymous Coward]

COPPA does not exist to be a pain, it exists as a way to help make sites that target tweens and children (intentionally or not) responsible for the content they are making public. It exists to protect children from having their personally identifiable info available in a public forum.

In short "think of the children" political rhetoric. Where is the parent in all this questionable legislation? What makes you think COPPA is valid globally? COPPA DOES exist to be a pain as well as political poll "feel good" points. Add to that the revenue in fines like this and it is business as usual in Washington, DC.

No one makes people enter into the business of social networking. Like any other business there are ethics and laws by which that business must abide. If a site is blatantly ignoring basic safeguards COPPA requires, they are breaking the law and should suffer the sanctions outlined under those laws.

An unjust and unenforceable law can and should be overturned. If not by Congress then by the courts. Most ineffective laws that are passed like this one get shot down sooner or later.

Yes, parents should be the primary dispensers of the morals needed for their kids to navigate the sometimes age-inappropriate corners of the Internet.

You should have stopped right there but no, you go on with...

But if a site has an open journaling tool or has fields requesting information that would make a child easy to find and possibly hurt, that site DOES has an obligation (ethically and legally) to put the necessary hurdles in place to protect those children.

Horseshit! More of the "think of the children" rhetoric when the responsibility should lie solely and squarely in the hands of parents. If your child isn't savvy enough to figure out what information is "safe" to give, then they shouldn't have access to the internet unsupervised. That is the proper role of a parent. There is never a good reason to assign the role of parenting to the government.

There are many levels of personal identification described in COPPA, all with different levels of verification needed. For example, if a child is signing up for a newsletter, no parental consent is needed. If their comments are not screened and made public, parental consent is needed.

Which makes COPPA even more unenforceable and harder to implement. Now, instead of one level of verification, a site owner has many to contend with. For every level of complexity in any law, there are at least 1000 gray areas that fall between those levels. It is a result of knee-jerk politically motivated legislation like COPPA that makes companies move offshore to avoid this silliness. Does that mean that they are any less accessable to those under 13? Again, COPPA is simply a "feel good and get reelected" piece of legislation that has no meaning outside of the US.

There are many ways to verify parental consent. Credit card is one, 1-800 # is another, signed fax form is another. Once the parent agrees, anything the kid puts up is fair game. For more limited access, there is a new amendment to the act describing an email plus verification. The safeguards are actually not that hard, and many of those who target children specifically in their communities place much higher barriers to entry just to be sure.

Again, what affect does this have globally? Just how are you going to enforce this globally? It is a US law valid only in the US. It is also easy to circumvent no matter how you dance around the issue. In short, it is an ineffective law enforced arbitrarily and capriciously based on morals inflicted by the government to do the job of parents.

Fines for COPPA violations are based on a per occurrence measurement.

Of course they are. Gotta finance the FTC somehow not to mention the vari

Re:COPPA does not exist to be a pain

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, good idea. The US is ready to adopt extremely libertarian values on Monday, I'm told. Finally we can move forward on that, right?

I can't wait to buy guns at my local convience store, so that when I'm shooting heroin and I pass out in your back yard I can defend myself from your geneticly modified cyberneticaly enhanced shark w/laser when you notice me (if I am awake by that point).

I know, as a parent, I don't want or appreciate legislation with the goal of keeping kids safe. To many kids as-is.

No really. All of that. Totally.

Re:COPPA does not exist to be a pain

[Cramer]

There are many ways to verify parental consent. Credit card is one, 1-800 # is another, signed fax form is another.

Credit Card... simple swipe it from mom/dad and you're in. If the site doesn't charge the card, the "parents" will never know the number was given to anyone else. Depending on how and what you check, it could even be a number they found through google!

800#... call it yourself and lie. Or have a friend call it, and LIE. Do you have their voice on file? Are you going to record the call for future reference (in court)?

Signed form... And you have what exactly to compare that signature against?

And exactly how are you verifying that those presenting themselves as the parents are, in fact, the child's legal parent or guardian?

Re:COPPA does not exist to be a pain

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you need to lay off the bong at least an hour before using the internet.

Re:COPPA does not exist to be a pain

[yuna49]

What a thoughtful discussion of these issues. Thanks.

Too bad I don't have mod points today. You probably won't get many because you're not taking the "COPPA is stupid" line.

Re:COPPA does not exist to be a pain

[joily]

Much more interested in at least some of the facts and intentions being inserted (however nested). :)

Daft law

[Jayjay75]

It's really a daft law in the first place. It's supposed to protect the online privacy of children under age 13, but then the same law demands that websites violate COPPA by gathering personal information about these kids in order to verify their age. The law requires that we violate it in order to comply with it.

Re:Daft law

[cswiger2005]

It's a daft law, agreed, but when a website asks someone whether they are under 13 and they answer yes, the website is supposed to discard any information they have provided. It's pretty easy to do if you are using something like Apple's WebObjects or another session-based web architecture to implement the website.

Re:Daft law

[Lehk228]

as long as you store all identifying info in one place it is very easy to set up the database to nuke any entry if the birthdate is greater than now() - 13 years

Re:Daft law

[cswiger2005]

That is an excellent point; Xanga probably could have saved itself a lot of hassle after-the-fact from the FTC if they had simply done what you suggested to clear their database of under-13 users who had checked the over-13 checkbox initially...

Ignorance is Bliss

[solinari]

A quick summary of this situation:

A) They had a "Are you over 13" check box
B) They had a entered birthdate

They only checked A, but not B, to determine if a user could register. If they hadn't asked for B, then A would have been sufficient as a "legal" check under this law. Also, if they had checked B, the users would have very likely gone back and lied about it, but they still would have been legal.

The fact that these checks are easily bypassed is not the issue at hand. Instead it is much like the issue with saved search data or saved email. Any piece of data, especially "people" data, that you save can potentially bring liability for you down the road. Both Xanga and Google in Brazil are examples of this principle.

In the past we've seen the manta "Storage is Cheap." Any time there's data, why not just hang onto it? You might be able to use it for something, someday. That has already proven to be a bad idea in many circumstanes (and it sure to get worse as more and more politicians start to realize how powerful all that aggregate data can be). A better rule is any time there is data that anyone might want for purposes other than immediate application, get rid of it as soon as reasonably possible!

Courts do not expect you to check data that you didn't collect because you didn't need it. Brazil cannot order you to turn over data that you don't have. You can still get in trouble, but they will need to establish that you're committing some kind of crime by keeping less personal data on people. That's a much harder standard to argue!

In short, ignorance is bliss, a principle for the digital millenium.

When you know your users...

[qcs-rf.com]

I am a youth leader at my church and I administer phpbb2 forums on our youth group website where the youth can talk about things online between Sunday nights. In this case, because I know all the youth that have joined or will be joining, I had to hack the phpbb2 code to get rid of the COPPA-related code. I also disabled new members from posting automatically, and I have to approve them before they can post or reply. That way I make sure I know who's joining my youth group forums and it keeps the gambling-site-spammers at bay.

GameFAQs

[MostAwesomeDude]

GameFAQs has a very interesting policy which perhaps might save sites like Xanga and MySpace from getting reamed with fines. Anytime somebody on GameFAQs makes a post which implies or states that the user is underage, their account is immediately suspended pending verification of age. If the person really is underage, then their account is suspended until they are old enough.

Re:GameFAQs

[Anonymous Coward]

xanga has it

What impact?

[Eq 7-2521]

What impact, if any, has COPPA had on anything?

Re:What impact?

[DragonWriter]

Well, as this settlement reveals, its provided the FTC the ability to force social sites to create rating systems for user generated content. Some people might argue that that has little to do with children's online privacy.

Re:What impact?

[Trejkaz]

For one thing, it has unnecessarily increased the complexity of various webapps...

Not a Fine

[DragonWriter]

Xanga settled with the FTC for $1 million dollars plus certain policy changes (such as setting up a community moderation system which allows users to flag other users as "underage", and setting up a rating system for user created content), they weren't fined $1 million.

The difference is important; a settlement doesn't mean anything was proven, it means Xanga felt the cost of complying with the settlement terms was worth paying considering the cost of fighting the issue and the risk that they might be fined.

And, really, looking the settlement terms, it looks like the FTC may well have been looking not for real violations, but an opportunity to impose defacto standards by finding someone who'd be willing to settle; particularly the requirement for a rating system for user-generated content looks like an effort to start imposing new rules on the web through bullying that would have little chance of being imposed by legislation or regular public rulemaking (but, once established in several settlements like this with large sites, might have a better chance of being imposed by law or rule on every site allowing public access and community-generated content.)

Re:Not a Fine

[makomk]

1) Flag someone you don't like as "underage"
2) ???
3) Profit!

Why not fine the kids

[SQLz]

After all, I could go to this site and say I'm 11 years old and they could rack up more fines.

I love the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

If your 13, you can... buy and play games which depect sexual violence, disembodyment, satanic ritual, murder of inocents, horific gore and blood curding horror, without having to ask your parents.

But you can't make a account on a website without the permission of your parents.

Even more funny, the courts inforce both of these strongly.

the impossibility of verifying age

[JimBobJoe]

I don't know how a 15 year old would go about this online.

A Time magazine article from a month or two ago indicated that the state attorney general's were having panicked meetings regarding this issue (including the famous quote from the Connecticut AG along the lines of "if we can put a man on the moon, we can verify age online.")

For a time they actually considered requiring sites like Myspace to collect SSNs...and according to the article, they rejected the idea once they realized that most of the world does not have an SSN, but does use the internets.

If that doesn't give you an idea of the caliber of people we're dealing with, I dunno what would. Requiring teens to submit their SSNs to use these types of sites would be a disaster along biblical proportions--imagine how easy phishing would be--all you'd need to do is send out an email that claims it's from Xanga needing your SSN.

Re:the impossibility of verifying age

[thej1nx]

the famous quote from the Connecticut AG along the lines of "if we can put a man on the moon, we can verify age online."

Well the success ratio for "putting a man on the moon" currently is, once in approx. 50 years.

If that is also acceptable for successful online age verifications, I don't see why xanga.com should have any problems. Getting one user's age verified, once in every 50 years, shouldn't be that hard.

Re:the impossibility of verifying age

[JimBobJoe]

Splendid. Thanks for pointing out that the metaphor is flawed all by itself.

Re:the impossibility of verifying age

[Alchemar]

I have a problem with everyone using my SSN as an ID. It was never intended to be used for an ID except by the IRS, your employer, and the social security office. The people that set it up knew that it would be a disaster if people started using it as an ID. That is why they use to read "Not for Identification". I have had mine used for my employee ID (posted on the wall for a call out list), my student ID (posted on the wall with my grades), my health insurace member number, my 401K membership number( this seems close to social security, but my SSN is the default account number, and the last four digits are the default password, Thank you Meryl Lynch for your concerns with my privacy).

Your SSN is not private, why do they act like you are the only one with this number. We are in a day an age when people need an ID number. I don't like it, but that is the way that things are shaping up. In small towns everyone just knew who everyone else was, now you probably don't know the name of your next door neighbor. People have to be able to verify that you are not someone else.

I think that I have the start of a solution. It needs to be done very similar to bank cards. There needs to be a private key, and a public key. Set up a goverment agency that is in charge of issuing ID numbers. Everyone gets an ID number when they are born or enter the country that they are never to give to anyone else. Anyone needs to verify an ID, is given a request number. When they want to verify your ID, they give you their request number, you run a hash with that number against your private number. They submit their number and your name to the "Department of Identification" and it returns the hash generated from their request number and the same number that only you, and the "Department of Identification" has. If the name and the hash match, it is you. Add a date of birth, and you have a way to verify age as well. It might require a public ID number instead of a name to prevent name conflicts, but it will be useless without the hash code. No two companies would ever be given the same ID hash number to track you with. If someone does intercept the number you have given, it will only be good with the company that you gave the number to, making it a lot easier to notice than if someone opens up a new bank account in another state. I have seen electronic address books on sale for under $5, I am sure that they can make a calculator that does nothing but calculate hash numbers that is cheaper than the Drivers license with all the conterfiet protection.

They also need to make it possible to obtain a new number if the old one is compromised. As the current US law stands, if someone gets your SSN and starts using it, you are prohibited from getting a new number. People in the Social security office have acctually stated that the best bet to gain your life back, is to move out of the country.

Re:the impossibility of verifying age

[imroy]

It was more than one person on the moon. Project Apollo made six successful landings on the moon. So a dozen people. In 35 years. For 25 billion dollars. In 1969 dollars ($135 billion 2006 dollars). Not exactly a good example to use for something that has to be simple enough for possibly millions of users around the world in their own homes, and cheap enough to be financially viable for a commercial entity.

When I was 13

[Anonymous Coward]

The people I wanted to protect my privacy from WERE my parents.

This puts the burden on the wrong people

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Don't ask the kids their ages. Ask everyone if they're a pedophile. Anyone who says yes is barred from signing up. It works for keeping terrorists out of the country.

There *IS* a better law.

[raehl]

No prohibition on collecting information based on age.

But, you can't distribute or use for marketing purposes any information that appears to be from someone 13 or under.

See, that wasn't that hard, was it?

English class, too.

[Kadin2048]

I always knew that Alge-Blaster was missing something ... I wouldn't have guessed that hard-core sex was it, though.

Although, such a product would dovetail well with the excellent Celeste's Guide to Grammar, and Advanced Grammar (NSFW if your boss lacks a sense of humor). Everyone says that education needs to be 'more relevant' today; you can't get more relevant than that.

parents?

[ic4x0r]

seriously, it's not too hard to figure out how to circumvent age checks and parental permissions. 'oh nos, a kid lied about his or her age in order to sign up for some social networking site and got into some sort of trouble, the website must be to blame!' well, if parents aren't teaching their kids that publishing detailed personal information about oneself on the internets is a potentially dangerous thing to do, then we have another problem on our hands - parents not taking responsibility for raising their kids. and while social networking sites and online journals may facilitate kids talking to strangers, it's nothing new - before Myspace and Xanga there were chat rooms and IM.

what impact?

[Anonymous Coward]

other sites will make sure there's a checkbox the kids can check to pretend they have permission....

Xanga: The NEW Mom and Dad

[AriaStar]

Parents, all you have to do to to get out of parenting and monitoring the child YOU created is to tell Xanga/MySpace/etc. that they have to do it for you! What fun! No longer do you have to actually watch your own children! And it's only a matter of time before they'll even have to change your infant child's diapers and potty train for you!! Because you, as a parent, should have to take NO responsibility for parenting!!!

Damned parents. Learn to watch your children closer and to take responsibility for raising them. If you aren't raising your children to be ethical people, ones truthful about their ages who won't go where they know they shouldn't, that's your problem. I know it's hard work, but it can be done. If you aren't ready to take the responsibility, don't have kids. And if you already chose to, don't bitch about it. You made your choice.

Re:Xanga: The NEW Mom and Dad

[Shados]

Totally agree with you. Even worse is, if things like this continue, the next few generations will grow up with the "Anything you -can- actualy do, is fair game" mentality. Kids will learn that if people are not actively trying to stop them from doing something, its fine to do it. Chaos incoming.

Re:Xanga: The NEW Mom and Dad

[NeoSkandranon]

If you aren't raising your children to be ethical people, ones truthful about their ages who won't go where they know they shouldn't, that's your problem.

Point: really, is it unethical to dodge a law that's pretty useless at best anyway? I know I wouldn't have a problem witht my (hypothetical) kids pretending to be a couple years older to get something harmless like a Xanga or LJ or whatever. Hell I did it when I was younger, and I seem to have come out alright.

Re:Xanga: The NEW Mom and Dad

[AriaStar]

Point being kids aren't being raised to be truthful. They're being raised to find ways to circumnavigate rules, then to push the blame off on to someone else when caught. I wouldn't mind my own children using these services, but would want them to tell and I'd do what is neccesary so that they can, whatever the site needs for parental consent. Would you really want to put your 10yo or 11yo in charge of deciding when it's okay to break a rule when his/her sense of right and wrong is still in development? You may have coe out all right, as I did, but a lot of kids these days, more than when we were kids, are growing up accustomed to being allowed to break rules left and right and to blame others.

I like age verification

[aepervius]

For the "reservoir dog" game I wanted to check the official web site. So I went to it : there is an age verification thingy. I clicked inadvertently on the OK button before entering the correct year. I got the answer "you are not authorised". Naturally they used a trick with activex to put some random file data somewhere, because even after having deleted all cookie, offline content, changed IP , used a proxie I still could not go in the web site. I will definitly not buy the game when it is such an hassle just to watch a web site. I have LESS DIFFICULTY trying to get porn where they ask for your age with an agree/disagree button :).

A modest proposal

[stephenbooth]

I agree. A far better solution would be for the parents of poor children to sell their excess children to rich as a foodstuff and use the money thus gained to feed their remaining children. I realise that I am not the first to make such a suggestion.

Stephen

Who says geeks aren't youth obsessed?

[Cybert4]

Yeesh that's as bad as pop culture. Apparently people over 36 don't matter. Try using Julian Date (it's something like 4000ish BCE). No reference to religion either (yeah, geeks are atheist).

Elimination of "evil non-members"

[sowth]

It would be trivial for the government to issue age verification cards. Difficult for just about anyone else. They could issue them at driver's license offices, tax offices, and such. And to make it somewhat private and resonably secure, they could do something as simple as hashing a name and birth year together and putting it on a card. Then websites could just collect a name, birth year and the hash, send them to a government server, and get a result back real or fake, and the site would know whether or not it is legal to allow them to post, view pr0n, buy kitten juice or whatever.

Yeah, children might get an adult's card and use it. Yeah, some government workers might decide they don't like someone and modify the server so it will reject their hash, denying them access to many websites, just like the no fly list. Not perfect, but it would be better than the stupid credit card/identity fraud assistance ideas.

The problem with this is the people enacting these laws and enforcing them don't really care about what they say. The usually want to force people to follow their religion, politics or such. It is the taliban pure and simple. They want to ban pr0n, alcohol, gambling, or just keep people from communicating on the internet. It has nothing to do with "protecting the children" or "public safety." They probably rape and eat baby heads for dinner.

I remember this one city I was living, they used 9/11 as an excuse to shut down most of the bars and dance clubs (not that there were many left after all the things they did anyway). They passed a law requiring many public places to have metal detectors and all sorts of things--convienently, schools and churches were left out. Made it very expensive to run any sort of social gathering place (except a church or school-- which was essentialy run by the local clergy anyway) The few who managed to comply were harassed out of business anyway. I think the only place which managed to survive was a bar, and they probably did because they were used to that kind of harassment. There was already a law in place where alcohol could only be served in "private clubs" and undercover police would constantly go in without a membership and try and buy something. (by their crazy law was illegal) The reason these laws were created had nothing to do with protecting anyone. They made them to take away all social access from anyone who didn't go to their church.

Later they also created some "parking" laws to basicly kick out everyone who was over 25 and single, because one of their clergy had declared these people a "menace to society."

If it's the clever under-13s who are getting in...

[bobkoure]

... and the point was to protect kids from online predators, why not make passing a multiple choice test (with link to info so kids can go crib the answers) part of what's required?

Seems like at least one point of the age limitation was to screen out those kids who were so young they had no clue about online predators - so why not at least try to educate 'em - the ones over 13 who can't pass maybe shouldn't be there anyway (?)

Or... work it like a game. Get some folks (maybe even other 13 year olds) to act in the guise of an online predator (special login, interactions logged, etc.) The folks on the board who fall for the fake predator, get sandboxed until they show (more tests, I guess) that they're competent. The faker-predators get points, and maybe get to tell the gullible that they "own all their bases" - or whatever.. And the non-gullible also get points for turning in predators, real or fake.

Sure, there'll still be real predators - but the kids will be "playing" against them. Ever seen a grown up try to compete agains kids in an online game?

code cards?

[Anonymous Coward]

the internet is so fickle because there really isnt any real life intervention that can monitor these things. Maybe there should be some sort of system where you can get an age comfirmation card from software retailers, which gives you a code to type in. This could be a free of charge service... or like most things in life someone can capitilize on this... however something needs to be done to make sure people are the age they say they are.