Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stricter COPPA Laws Coming In July

Posted by Soulskill on from the won't-somebody-please-think-of-the-children dept.

Velcroman1 writes "The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) was enacted in 1998. In 2011, the FTC beefed up the measure, preventing sites from collecting personal information from kids such as name, location and date of birth without a parent's consent. This July, new amendments for kids under 13 will go into effect, approved by the FTC in December. The rules are targeted at sites that market specifically to kids. However, even a site like Facebook could be fined for allowing minors to post self-portraits, audio recordings of their voice, and images with geo-location data. There are also new restrictions on tracking data, with cookies or a unique identifier that follow registrants from one site to another."

11 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. How about... by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about we stop it with the nanny-state crap and FUD about online and have parents -gasp- parent? You know, like tell you kids basic stuff like don't give out addresses online, don't go meet people online, etc. This will be a never ending battle, anytime a kid does something stupid and gets hurt because of it people will petition the government to "do something" and slowly the internet gets regulated to death.

    Seriously, how hard is it to tell your kid don't tell someone where you are and don't meet them?

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It'll never happen. Much like firearm legislation, the ultimate goal isn't the laws that they're showing you... today. They'll chisel away until what is absurd today looks like the logical conclusion tomorrow.

    2. Re:How about... by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These same folks who are up in arms about the Nanny State when it comes to large drinks and smoking have no concept of individual liberty, because they're perfectly at home banning a Constitutionally enumerated right 'for the children'. That includes speech and the right to bear arms. The irony is lost on them...

      We live in a world where the people in power have two opposing ideas in their heads that they can magically agree are not at odds with each other.... (Witness cunt Feinstein's argument that the Assault Weapons Ban isn't a "ban"... it's a list of "approved" weapons.)

      WTF planet did I land on?

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    3. Re:How about... by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would I care if Facebook is tracking on every internet page? What does Facebook do with that information? Do they sell it to "Rapists-R-Us"? Or do they instead sell it to marketers who's job it is to make better products. What a terrible tragedy it is that people want to sell me things that I think I'd like! What a terrible tragedy that marketers can look and see that I like band X and live in general location Y and schedule a tour there if they think there's enough interest.

      -shrug- if you don't like tracking, block the cookies. If you don't like Facebook don't have a Facebook account. If you don't like ads use adblock.

      Myself, I really couldn't care less.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:How about... by Intropy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Plenty of the same folks up in arms about drink and smoking are also up in arms about other rights. Unfortunately too few. People have a real problem separating "I don't think you should do that." from "I'm going to force you not to do that." I don't smoke, and I don't have any interest is using marijuana. And, frankly, I think you're better off not participating in either of those vices either*. But if you want to do that or allow people to do that at your restaurant, that is none of my business. I'll save my parenting for my actual kids. In Washington sometimes I win (legalized marijuana), but more often I lose (no smoking in publicly accessible private places).

      * I'm speaking to the majority case here. I know perfectly well that for some people doing either can be a rational choice. The point is that it's your choice, good or bad, and not mine.

    5. Re:How about... by girlintraining · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How about we stop it with the nanny-state crap and FUD about online and have parents -gasp- parent?

      Because the times have changed. In the "roaring 50s" you could be a single-earner household and support the spouse and two kids, and live in a nice house and drive a nice car. These days, however, dual-income families are the norm, and you don't usually get the nice house and nice car either. Parents cannot be full-time in this economy. As a result, the government is stepping in with greater regulation. Ideally, yes, "parents should parent". Ideally, all children and their families should be shipped to a special state called Crotch Fruit too. However, this is not an ideal world.

      You know, like tell you kids basic stuff like don't give out addresses online, don't go meet people online, etc

      And you always did what you were told as a kid, right?

      This will be a never ending battle, anytime a kid does something stupid and gets hurt because of it people will petition the government to "do something" and slowly the internet gets regulated to death.

      Imminent Death of the Internet Predicted! Whoa there, Slippery Slope Internet Guy(tm). People have been doing stupid shit and getting hurt and then petitioning the government to do something about it since the first government was formed. It didn't result in the end of society as we know it. It does result in hilarity however, like the woman who spilled hot coffee in her crotch and then sued McDonald's, or proposed anti-assault rifle legislation that says gluing a stick to your shotgun makes it a "military-style" weapon. Strangely, McDonald's didn't go out of business, coffee didn't become illegal, and shotguns are still in the households of millions of Americans, including the "military-style" ones with a stick duct taped to it.

      Now I will grant you that this piece of legislation has some problems, but let's discuss those problems rather than having a knee-jerk "regulation is bad! It'll cause the end of the world as we know it!" reaction.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    6. Re:How about... by letherial · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anyone who thinks that parenting is easy and kids will just do what they are told are either A. not a parent, or B. a deadbeat parent.

      I agree with you though, when the state gets involved with parenting it causes a whole new level of problems

    7. Re:How about... by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I may get modded into oblivion for this, but... society-wise, maybe it's better for the occasional Darwin moment to happen, even if it involves a kid.

      Seriously - when you have government becoming more and more imposing on societal rights and freedoms "for the children", maybe it's time to stop and let parents find out (even if, sadly, it's the hard way) that maybe they should stop treating the Internet like a toy. Long ago, I was asked to teach my local church group about the Internet. The analogy I drew worked pretty well in my own estimation:

      The Internet is like New York City. It's fun, exciting, you can buy stuff there, and it can educate as well as entertain. However! Just like the Big Apple, you do not let your kid wander around the place alone.

      Thing is, no parent would be stupid enough to let their under-aged kid wander around Times Square at night. So why do they let their kids play unfettered on the Internet? Maybe it's because the dangers of the big city are obvious and apparent, whereas they aren't online? Well, if enough news stories come out about kids harmed by doing something dumb online, and happens often enough, maybe the parents will get the hint? As shitty as it is to say this, maybe we need enough of this to happen before the clue sinks in?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  2. Re:This might be a good thing... by DrEldarion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The point is that it shifts the blame slightly. With age verification, they have the ability to say "we restrict based on age, THAT KID is the one who lied, blame them!".

  3. You must be clueless by bussdriver · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Ok, how about the parent watches the child nearly all the time:
    Corporations can still track and profile the kid from birth. The child can be targeted in ways the parent is unaware of, since they lack expertise in child psychology, marketing, peer pressure, and whatever new technology only the kids are using. Don't forget about abusive ex-spouses and kidnappers. Excluding pedos, because they are likely friends or family.

    The child's future employment (just for starters) could be influenced by data gathered on them. The parent may not know. Already some HR people won't hire somebody without a facebook profile (and others won't if you do have one.) So, keeping the child off the grid may also do harm in the future.

    Children without a profile might be more prone to costly insurance claims...Resulting in higher rates for the child's whole lifetime.

    There is more than just kid doing childish things online.... although we really could use some laws to allow kids to mess up online instead of criminalizing them for calling somebody names because they can't get that out of their system in the school yard anymore.

    --
    Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
  4. Re:How about... actually giving a crap? by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not so much about parents parenting but about stopping the powerful from taking advantage of the powerless. It's kind of like what the whole Transformers' cartoon crap was: the show was a full half-hour length commercial for toys. It takes the FCC or governmental action to stop everything on TV from being straight-out plain marketing to kids who can't tell the difference between content and commercials, between truth and puffery/advertising, between reality and fantasy.
    .
    It's why kids fall for things like opening themselves up to ridicule and bullying on sites like formspring or (while it existed) dailybooth, where junior-high-schoolers I knew (and even middle-school kids below us) set themselves up to deviants and bullies asking them stupid salacious questions and they answered them. Now of course they brought a bit of it upon themselves by their own action, but sometimes it is up to those who are more responsible to get in the way of the weak from being trod upon, eh?
    .
    Consumer laws exist to protect adults from sleazy car salesmen and criminally-intent stock-brokers (though kickstarter and the decrease in regulation of allowing funding of companies is going to kick down that safety net). IMHO it's okay to have laws that protect kids at or under the age of 13 from the nefarious intentions of the googler-corporations of the world. I know that the free-market-eers and the libertarians will say "let the free market work it out" and "let capitalism work it out", but sometimes regulations are necessary so that the young and weak are not exploited.