Slashdot Mirror


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?

15 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. what does this accomplish by PrinceAshitaka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    quis custodiet ipsos custodes
    1. Re:what does this accomplish by exley · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:what does this accomplish by xiphoris · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:what does this accomplish by demeteloaf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If there's anything more important than my ego around, i want it caught and shot now.
    4. Re:what does this accomplish by Kesch · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      --
      If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
    5. Re:what does this accomplish by exley · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

    6. Re:what does this accomplish by WeblionX · · Score: 4, Funny

      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!

      --
      (\(\
      (=_=) Bani!
      (")")
    7. Re:what does this accomplish by fm6 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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!

    8. Re:what does this accomplish by DragonWriter · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.
  2. Proof? by HockeyPuck · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    Have your parent click here [__] to proceed.

    1. Re:Proof? by bunions · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
  3. Childs right to privacy? by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  4. Misguided, overzealous propaganda by adf2006 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. What effect will the websites have on the law? by xiphoris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)

  6. the impossibility of verifying age by JimBobJoe · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.