Slashdot Mirror
Why Google Is Disabling Kids' Gmail Accounts
theodp writes "The Washington Post's Elizabeth Flock managed to hold Google's feet to the fire and get an explanation of sorts for why it's making kids cry by disabling their Gmail accounts after years of use. Giving 12-year-olds access to Gmail — unless they are using Google Apps for Education accounts through their school — is proving to be as formidable a task for Google as making renewable energy cheaper than coal. But what about that viral 'Dear Sophie' commercial, asked Flock, in which a father creates a Gmail account for his baby daughter and uses it to send her photos, videos, and messages that chronicle her growing up? 'The implied understanding,' replied a Google spokesman, 'is that the girl in the story does not have access to the account, but that she will have access to it "someday."'"
Is it Google's fault? Or COPPA's? Or both?
Like every 9 year old on MySpace ever did... just put in the wrong birthyear and everything stays cool.
Seems a good lesson that often in life one must tell lies of varying degrees. Fibbing about age is one of those.
Many websites and services (email, web hosting / blog sites, facebook, etc) have age stipulations ranging from 13 to 21, which effectively makes much of the web useless to young people unless they lie.
One day my pre-teen-aged daughter wanted to set up an avatar for her Google mail account, like her best friend had. A nice pony or whatever. So we have opened the settings and one of things that Google wanted to know was the date of birth. After naively filling in the date (*not* the real number, but still way low age) ... poooof ... the account was gone. And mind you, this was account my daughter has created in an "IT" class. In my country we do not have educational accounts the article talks about.
In one second the account is there, the next ... gone.
Google wanted scan of my ID or something.
YOU ARE NOT GONNA GET IT GOOGLE!!! You Do. Not. Need. A. Copy. Of. My. Passport.
So we have created another account with a slightly different name, but my daughter has been upset for quite a long time. Still is, in fact. And I had to explain why Google are such ... bloody morons.
The same day I have made backup of my entire Google mail account. I do not trust them anymore that they won't pull the same stunt with MY personal account.
In reply to some comments / sentiments in this thread regarding how quick Google is to delete accounts, be wary of creating a Google+ account / user profile.
There have been many reports of Google+ accounts being flagged for various reasons (username choosen, duplicate acct, complaints from others, etc) resulting in the linked services, such as, GMail being suspended / terminated too.
Imho, avoid creating a Google+ account - not so easy now that Google is rolling that out across services, so the next best option is not create a profile; leave it as empty as possible. And keep services separate ... don't use the same Google+ account for GMail as one does for other services (ie. YouTube).
Hi All,
I too was put off by Google's disabling of my son's account, but I decided to give Google a chance and see if they would be reasonable. I sent a note to them in the only way I could come up with, by writing it (by hand on a paper), scanning together, my ID, and my note which was an explanation that my son was really under age, and that as his parent, I was the "holder" of his account, but he was using it under my supervision. I sent the note to their photo ID link, and his account was reinstated. I assume that they actually read the note, and allowed this, but it is possible they have an automated process that accepts any photo you send as ID, and automatically reinstates the account. If they do, shame on them. If they don't, I applaud them for being reasonable.
Rob
It seems like a lot of people are unhappy with Google's FREE service. If you don't like how Google is running THEIR business, start your own or find one that is age appropriate for kids. I fail to understand why people get mad when they can't get exactly what they want from a company that is offering their services for no additional charge to the user. If the users were paying something, ie AOL, then i would understand.
So, for al the reason Google suggests Chromebooks, how do I let my (hypothetical) kid use a Chromebook without giving them access to my email?
Google Apps for Education sounds great, but I've yet to run into a school using it.
That said, I'm more curious to know why this is you decided to apparently come back and post this one comment just a day short of five years after your previous one on December 19 2006?!
Today is his 18th birthday.
When I was ten (1997), I had an account on virtually all website/email services that were big (relatively) at the time. There was never question of deleting my account because I was a kid.
Stripping kids of the right to use that kind of service is the same as stripping kids from having the right to use the Internet. This is preposterous and stupid.
American people, get rid of that law.
Facebook is full of underage users and lets them "go legit" when they turn 13. As a consequence, they've captured this audience and all of the adults that they'll grow into (as well as a goodly number of their parents). Google+ requires that users be eighteen. That's ridiculous. Ostensibly, it is temporary but I've seen no suggestion from Google that this is any sort of priority. This is why Google+ will never challenge Facebook. When Amazon and Facebook merge, they'll rule the world. How very unfortunate.
Let me get this straight... here we have some parents who created Gmail accounts for their young children, fully aware that this was in violation of Google's teams of service. Then they became upset when Google deleted the accounts. How is this Google's fault? Clearly these so-called adults are missing the whole point. They lied about their kids' ages, and got caught. And instead of accepting responsibility for breaking the rules, which would be the mature thing to do, they got mad at Google. It's disappointing that these parents set such a bad example for their children.
I don't think you 'get' COPPA. It doesn't say an internet service needs to monitor your children. It is saying in essence the exact opposite. It says that they have to disclose what data they collect, who they share it with, limit the data collected to only what is necessary to use the service, can't collect any information about the child unless the parent gives explicit permission. If the parent gives permission to collect the data, it allows the parents to tell the service to stop and to delete the child's data. It also lists other rules on what data can be collected and how it is shared... but read it yourself I'm not going to list it all here. The only thing that pisses me off is that I can't stipulate the same conditions to Google for myself.
COPPA is a tool to aid the parent and COPPA is anathema to everything Google is about: collecting data. Data is the life blood of the company; literally. It is easier for them to just say no to those under 13 than to spend a ton of money to set up the required controls. Especially, as I think, most parents are likely to chose not to allow their child's data to be collected nor shared (and I can't blame them one bit). And it is the data that is important to Google, not the child. It is with the data that they generate their revenue. So in a nutshell, they have two choices: 1) spend a ton of money to create and maintain the controls to meet the COPPA requirements and keep children using GMail and other services (which also eat up bandwidth and disk space, both of which also cost money) without gaining any revenue generating data from them in return, or 2) simply bar children from using Google services. Option 2 is way cheaper. Remember in a business the number one rule is that money coming in MUST be greater than money going out. Google is just following their number one rule. You libertarians and neocons can't possibly argue Google's position in this respect, can you? Hell, even business friendly liberals.. yes they exist... can't argue either.
Financially the choice they made makes much more sense for their business (and they are a business, not your cuddly free email provider). Remember, the only reason Google cares at all about the child or anyone else who puts their personal data on a Google server is because they put their personal data on a Google server.
You can try and say it is up to the parent to monitor the child which is a good starting point, but what are you going to do when the biggest services tell you they are going to store and possibly share (at their discretion not yours) your child's data and there is nothing you can do about it? Tell your child not to use the internet? Good luck with that. Seriously... good luck. The rest of us understand that you can say no, but if they can get access to the internet, anywhere, they are going to start using it. The library, a friends house, wherever. Especially if all their friends are using it, and then it will happen no matter what you say or do (unless you are one of those who chose to live in the backwoods of Idaho because 'the government is out to get you'... but if that's the case, you have more serious problems, and it ain't the government). So you might as well have them use it at home. And it would be nice to know who knows their name and where they live, and better yet, tell them to mind their own business.
As to how to verify the parent:
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
The bible player a major role in shaping what you today refer to as "common sense". You might think you don't need Jesus to tell you not to kill and steal and rape, but the world was a very different place 2000 years ago. What changed meanwhile?
The bible and it's ilk the Koran and all the rest are some of the worst set of "moral teachings" mankind has ever inflicted on itself.
You have only to do two cents worth of internet search or read God is Not Great by Hitchens or Why I am Not A Christian by Russel or anything by Dawkins and especially Sam Harris's The End of Faith http://www.samharris.org/ to explode the idea that religion is moral, or was moral at one time in the past
This is not something where you one say "well, you say this and I say that so both our arguments are equally valid.. because it's about morals" because religionists exactly DON'T believe that morals are relative and neither do scientists..
People behave in the ways they do because of genetics and environmental pressures. A part of that behaviour is the apprehension of and feelings about morality. Absent a compelling environmental contingency compelling a person to violent action, and that includes jealousy,. only sociopaths have to be told that killing is wrong. The rest of us *feel* it to be a horror and just plain wrong.
Ditto the uneasy feelings we get when we defy the norms of our society Sure, we can over come them for a reason, but that reason is also typically value - like The Truth- we learned from our society.
No one needs the Bible or any other holy book to help them to feel moral. It's a part f our genetic inheritance.
Ditto a moral society. Science is what produces a moral society because science brings us to truth and reality and when that meets our genetically mediated desire to "not do evil" and to empathize with our fellow human, we then can effectively meet those goals.
It;s no coincidence that religion is the number one source of wars throughout history, always in the name of doing good. That's because it's false knowledge, bad knowledge , with a Bronze Age understanding of How People Work and How The World Works and when THAT is what is guiding your inborn desire to achieve good and peace in the world, THIS is the result: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac