Slashdot Mirror
On the Web, Children Face Intensive Tracking
theodp writes "In the latest installment of their online privacy investigation, the Wall Street Journal reports that children face intensive tracking on the web, finding that popular children's websites install more tracking technologies on personal computers than do the top websites aimed at adults. In an analysis of 50 sites popular with US teens and children, the WSJ found that Google — whose execs recently lectured parents on online child safety — placed the most tracking files overall."
Considering what sort of advertisements you see on "children's" TV stations, is this any surprise? Children are targets for marketing firms, since they can whine and nag their parents in ways that the firms cannot.
Palm trees and 8
Most of the children's websites have "premium features" that you can only get to if you buy that virtual fluffy penguin or gold coin. This is just the nag factor at play. I have lost count of the number of times my kids have gone to sites like "Moshi Monster" or "Ella and Max" and found they could only play so far before they need to ask mum or dad for money to go further. If you as a parent can't face the tantrum that goes with the little darlings not being able to play the next level - then your only option is to pay up. Thankfully I can say no, but there are a lot of spoilt brats out there, so there is a market... With market comes cross-promotion opportunities, so tracking enhances the ability to profit. Simple really.
Meus subcriptio est nocens Latin quoniam bardus populus reputo is sanus callidus
Its foolish to say cookies are harmful they are a technology that is required by many online applications and if the end user wants to they can always turn them off or block specific sites from placing a cookie in your cache.
...
They are not the same as malware.
Cookies are not Malware they can not enter your Operating System and send data to anyone.
What some people are paranoid about is Opening Google Webmail and then browsing porn sites or other not so nice sites....
Hey idiots WEB SERVERS HAVE ACCESS LOGS the sites you visit already know every file you touch on their site
Not to mention routers and Squid servers used by your ISP can track all of your actions... and that has nothing to do with cookies.
WAKE UP!
Ah, good point there! As far as I can guess, the only way google can "guess" at the childishness of the user is by tracking the sites visited and drawing conclusions from that.
This, as you suggest, is merely a headline hook. After all, no self-respecting human being ought to be staking their lives on the Wall Street Journal. Goodness knows how much flack they've already taken on other reports, and how much more of it they can and will take. :)
Back to the point though, any site that gives up a cookie does so for tracking reasons. If most people on the planet use one google service or another, it's highly likely that most machines would be eating a lot of google cookies. Pure common sense there!
I really don't see the how storing a cookie on a kids computer would be any more (if at all) dangerous than storing cookies on adults computer. :|
Just sensational media hype this.. Ah, there's my grain of salt! :)
Geekism is your _only_ God!
Perhaps as the WSJ continues its wrong-headed, sensationalistic and, indeed disingenuous* "What Do They Know" series they might just consider telling their frightened readers how to deal with this supposed danger.
But no, the only reference to browsing tools comes in the rather anemic comments section.
Note to WSJ: Next time you scream "won't they think of the kids..." please tell your readers to:
Use Firefox with the following plugins:
And use a host file with known tracking company addresses nulled
If my technophobic boss could do all this after one short training session, then WSJ readers can do it too.
*WSJ uses their own and outside scripting, places cookies and places partner tracking cookies, no? Also, if a reader has access behind the paywall, then the WSJ even knows the reader's credit card details.