Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTC Strengthens Children's Privacy Protections Online

Posted by Soulskill on from the don't-think-of-the-children-without-parental-consent dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The U.S. Federal Trade Commission today updated the privacy standards that protect children's privacy online. The new rules say companies must gain parental consent before collecting a kid's geolocation data, photos, and videos. It also broadened existing language to include third parties and companies that collect data on users across multiple websites. 'While the new rule strengthens such safeguards, it could also disrupt online advertising. Web sites and online advertising networks often use persistent identification systems — like a customer code number in a cookie in a person's browser — to collect information about a user's online activities and tailor ads for that person. But the new rule expands the definition of personal information to include persistent IDs — such as a customer code number, the unique serial number on a mobile phone, or the I.P. address of a browser — if they are used to show a child behavior-based ads.'"

8 of 45 comments (clear)

  1. How do you tell if the user is a child? by pclminion · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How do you know the user is a child and thus subject to special rules? By asking them? If so, this is awesome -- I'll just tell everybody I'm a kid and get all the same privacy safeguards (because my "parent" is me, and he'll never give consent).

    1. Re:How do you tell if the user is a child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How do you know the user is a child and thus subject to special rules? By asking them? If so, this is awesome -- I'll just tell everybody I'm a kid and get all the same privacy safeguards (because my "parent" is me, and he'll never give consent).

      Browser makers should replace "Do Not Track" with "I'm a Child." Does the same thing, but advertisers aren't allowed to ignore it.

  2. The age is too low! by s.petry · · Score: 2

    Have to say it. 13 is too low of an age limit. It should be at least 16, which is the age of consent in the majority of states. 13 was fine in the early days, before we had all of the bots doing the leg work. Now, it should be higher and more restrictive.

    Look at the bright side, it'll generate lots of revenue for someone to develop all of those restrictions into the bots.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  3. Instagram / Facebook don't care by Swampash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Allow me to paraphrase Instagram's position on this issue: the USFTC can eat a dick.

    From Instagram's new Terms of Service:

    (Y)ou agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you. If you are under the age of eighteen (18), or under any other applicable age of majority, you represent that at least one of your parents or legal guardians has also agreed to this provision (and the use of your name, likeness, username, and/or photos (along with any associated metadata)) on your behalf.

    Get that? "If you're using this service and you're under 18 we will act as if we have parental consent to share every bit of data we have about you with anyone we want."

    1. Re:Instagram / Facebook don't care by s.petry · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't think that would hold water in court. It's been a long time since I studied that type of case law, but there is a specific term for that type of contract. Given a couple hours in the law library I would have a solid case against that TOS.

      The equivalent would be to give a contract to an autistic person taking 100% of their profits from their exceptional art talent, and having a statement of "my legal guardians agree to me signing this contract." The contract signed by only the autistic person is legally worth less than toilet paper. The contract is not valid because of that clause and I could sue for not only actual loss but some hefty damages.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    2. Re:Instagram / Facebook don't care by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 2

      "If you are under the age of eighteen (18), or under any other applicable age of majority, you represent that at least one of your parents or legal guardians has also agreed to this provision (and the use of your name, likeness, username, and/or photos (along with any associated metadata)) on your behalf."

      Conveniently a minor (under the age of eighteen) can't legally agree to such terms, and can't legally make such a representation.

      --
      Not a sentence!
  4. down side? by BradleyUffner · · Score: 2

    "While the new rule strengthens such safeguards, it could also disrupt online advertising."

    So what you are saying is, there is no down side?

  5. But Think of The Chil.. by rueger · · Score: 2

    "However, no parental notice and consent is required when an operator collects a persistent identifier for the sole purpose of supporting the website or online service's internal operations, such as contextual advertising, frequency capping, legal compliance, site analysis, and network communications,"

    In legal terms that's what you call a Loophole Big Enough To Drive A Truck Through.

    Seriously, how would this work anyhow? Surely kids will figure out pretty fast to lie about their age - who's going to follow up and prove them wrong? Or they'll just click the "Yes, I'm the Parent and Approve this Activity" Button. Think Facebook is going to try to track down Mommy or Daddy to confirm that it really was them that gave approval?

    --
    Three Squirrels