'Awful' Internet Rules Released

maximus1 writes "NetChoice, a trade group that identifies and fights threats aimed at online communities and e-commerce, released iAWFUL, a list of America's 10 worst legislative and regulatory proposals targeted at the Internet. At the top of the list is a Maine law that would require e-commerce sites to get parental approval before collecting minors' personal information. According to the NetChoice site, 'lawmakers approved the measure despite the fact that Web sites have no means to confirm such consent, and would be effectively forced to stop providing valuable services like college information, test prep services, and class rings.' Coming in second on the iAWFUL list is a city ordinance that would hit Internet users with an extra tax on hotel rooms. Scheduled to take effect in September, the new tax is aimed at consumers who use the Internet to bargain hunt for expensive NYC hotel rooms."

Comments

Awful?

[CannonballHead]

At the top of the list is a Maine law that would require e-commerce sites to get parental approval before collecting minors' personal information.

Considering the fact that they are (1) a minor and (2) probably have much of the same "personal information" as the parents do, I fail to see how this is bad, actually. Theoretically, the parents are still somewhat responsible for their kids when they are minors. I don't see how enforcing that on the internet as well as in other things (such as getting your ears pierced) is a bad thing. Maybe you want to argue about the parental control in the first place, but it doesn't help to just have inconsistent laws...

Re:Awful?

[natehoy]

Disclosure: I live in Maine.

There are a few minor problems with a law like this:

1: Identifying minors. I remember dealing with COPA on the discussion boards I run, and basically I had a checkbox that says "you cannot access this site if you are a minor, check here to certify that you are, in fact, over 18 or the legal age of independence for your country." I routinely had 13 and 14 year olds on the site, who admitted they were underage, who had checked that box. Guess what? People lie. And if a 13 year old had used the site to hook up with an adult for sex, I probably would have shared some liability even though I had no way of knowing the actual age of my users. The Internet happens over great distances, and you don't get to check ID for or personally interview every user.

2: Logistics. How, precisely, do you go about collecting consent from a parent (assuming the kid tells the truth)? Do you have to physically call every parent when the kid signs up for an account? Is getting verbal consent enough, or do you have to get a signed letter? How do you know it's not forged? What if the kid is located in somewhere other than Maine? Maybe, God Forbid, in another country? This may come as a surprise in Augusta, but kids exist everywhere.

3: Jurisdiction. If I run a web site in Maine, am I required to collect information on minors living in Maine only, or worldwide? Alabama and Japan are not requiring this parental consent, so I'm now running at a disadvantage compared to a web site running from (say) New Hampshire. How about if I run a website in, say, Dusseldorf or Paris and want to sell to someone in Maine. Do I, as a foreign entity, have to adjust my e-commerce systems to suit Maine law?

4: Sense. If Little Jimmy gets ahold of his dad's credit card and buys something, well, that sounds like a discipline issue between Jimbo and Dad, doesn't it? Dad either (a) gave consent by handing over the credit card or (b) will be surprised to find out that Jimbo LIED on the form and claimed to be Dad when he bought his stuff.

#4 is particularly true if somehow the vendor is supposed to know that Jimbo is lying and it's not really his dad making the purchase.

Other than the fact that it's an unenforceable law governing something that Maine has no jurisdiction over in a way that makes it very hard to do business in or from Maine, and that it's trying to fix a problem that can't be fixed this way, heck, it's a great law.

Regulating the Internet is silly.

[shredluc]

The internet has been a wonderful thing for billions of people since it's inception. Why on earth are legislators trying to make it a quagmire like anything else they touch? Really it's a great example of market based forces and what they can accomplish. Please, for all our sakes, leave it alone.

Re:Regulating the Internet is silly.

[CorporateSuit]

The internet has been a wonderful thing for billions of people since it's inception. Why on earth are legislators trying to make it a quagmire like anything else they touch? Really it's a great example of market based forces and what they can accomplish. Please, for all our sakes, leave it alone.

They have their thumbs in every pie but one. You think that letting it sit there, unregulated and unmolested, is even an option in their little iRule brains?

Can we agree

[sys.stdout.write]

to stop linking to itworld.com?

Justification:

• They use the stupid popup-balloon-when-you-mouse-over-hyperlinks
• They simply regurgitate press releases with virtually no added content of its own

Just a thought..

Petty and vaguely sordid.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that this list is from a trade group.

The Top 10 "worst internet laws in America" manages to include nothing related to wiretapping, DMCA, or the like; but does manage to include a bunch of whining about advertisers not being able to aggregate user search information?

This looks like shiny astroturf for some of the scum of the internet. If you actually care about good laws and freedom, give the EFF a look.

Re:Trade groups suck

[Anonymous Coward]

The law states its illegal to: "knowingly collect or receive health-related information or personal information for marketing purposes from a minor without first obtaining verifiable parental consent" MARKETING PURPOSES being the operative term here. This looks like a good law to me

No kidding. The article struck me as corporate whining.

"Waaaah...they won't let us market to the kids. WAAAAAAH."

you young whippersnappers...

[ExE122]

Perhaps the real problem is a lack of understanding. It seems that many lawmakers who try to deal with internet law have next to no technological knowledge about how the internet works, especially when it comes to e-commerce. (this looks like a good place for the obligatory 'tubes' link).

It seems like a lot of these laws are made with "good intentions" in that they are trying to prevent something they see as wrong: It sounds like the Maine law was trying to control the personal information dispersal of minors, and the law in New York was trying to keep it's residents from evading state taxes. They don't realize that the Maine law destroys a huge teenage market base in an already struggling economy, and that the New York law stifles e-commerce and causes a hastle for everyone outside of the state.

Unfortunately it looks like a lot of these laws are being proposed by individuals (I had originally written 'old farts' here but deleted it because it's unfair to old people... and to farts) have too narrow of a view to fully grasp the repercussions.

It's the same old complaint, I know (-1 Redundant) but I guess as long as there's slashdot, there will always be a place to bitch about it.

Re:You know what's awful?

[el_gordo101]

Add intellitxt.com to your hosts file and point it to 127.0.0.1, those annoying-ass pop-up link things will go away forever.

Re:I agree ...

[YrWrstNtmr]

I agree that it is a bad law in the sense that it is difficult for a site to know if a customer is a minor.

Not merely difficult, but impossible to positively identify who is sitting at the keyboard.

So the question, in my mind, isn't so much, "is the law good?" The question is, "how can we implement this law effectively?"

You have one too many words in your question. "Can we implement this law effectively?"
And the ansewr is "No".

Re:You know what's awful?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot srsly needs to consider having a -1 Whoosh mod.