Slashdot Mirror
EU Rules Would Ban Kids Under 16 From Social Media (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader sends word of new data protection rules up for vote in the European Parliament which would make it illegal for companies to handle the data of children aged 15 and younger. Currently, such data processing is prohibited only for kids 12 and under. This would affect European teenagers' ability to use Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, and many other social media services. This amendment has been opposed not only by the tech companies involved, but by many child safety experts as well:
Janice Richardson, former coordinator of European Safer Internet network, and consultant to the United Nations' information technology body, the ITU and the Council of Europe said: "Moving the age from 13 to 16 represents a major shift in policy on which it seems there has been no public consultation. "We feel that moving the requirement for parental consent from age 13 to age 16 would deprive young people of educational and social opportunities in a number of ways, yet would provide no more (and likely even less) protection." Larry Magid, chief executive of ConnectSafely.org, said: "It will have the impact of banning a very significant percentage of youth and especially the most vulnerable ones who will be unable to obtain parental consent for a variety of reasons."
The European youth needs discipline and direction. They are the heirs of the greatest civilization that has ever existed and will ever exist, after all. Obedience and a sense of purpose are important values.
...and nothing of value is lost.
Because that worked out great.
The actual rules are that if the member states don't set an age limit, the default is 16. Individual member states thus can have lower age limits.
At first I thought that would be good, but then I remembered I started visiting internet forums about gaming, programming and more when I was 11.
I wonder if forums count as social media too, or modern things like Reddit, where should our kids learn about these things before they are 16 now?
The ban is about third party companies (adults) handling data of people under 16. So if a Social Media product was P2P, or e2e encryption and was unable to snoop on it's users, then it wouldn't be an issue. I'd like to see this extended to all people under 120.
Meanwhile at the EU "Quick, ban the entire internet!?" An ominous leather chair creeks as it slowly turns around at the head of long wooden table. A man simultaneously wearing a monocle and an eye patch sneers "You fool! We must ban it piece by piece!"
So basically: still lower than driving age without parental supervision, in most of Europe.
I'm not sure if banning social media for children that age is a good thing, but having seen and heard what it has become, it does seem to magnify some dysfunctional social interactions happening at those ages.
Even before the internet, teens went through a period of trying to measure and compare their social standing, but social media seems to have created a caricature of that. Now, it is "directly measurable" to them: my selfie got 50 likes in one day, and yours only got 28. People said, "OMG you're pretty!" to me, but only "you're pretty!" to you. Teens are getting obsessed with constant, real time monitoring of these things - by some attempts to measure it, checking likes to their selfies as much as every 2 or 3 minutes throughout their entire day. In class, waiting for the bus, it doesn't matter.
It's hard to see that as a healthy thing. Of course, it's tempting to view anything new and different as bad. It happens with every generation: rock and roll, computer gaming, etc. Still, I can't help but think this is different. This is:
* Permanent. What you put out there, good, bad, or ugly, stays out there. If it's embarrassing or hurtful, it will be used against you potentially for the rest of your life, rather than being forgotten as stupid shit used to be. Your name will be forever attached.
* Commercial. It's used to build profiles of kids to advertise to them, which will follow them through life.
* Direct. It seems to magnify whatever "popular vs unpopular" axis that has always existed at those ages. It makes the popular feel more so, and the unpopular feel even more alienated. And kids can be very cruel to the unpopular.
I'm not sure social media is anything good for kids, but somehow, banning it doesn't seem likely to fix those problems, either. Maybe the better approach is to help them deal with it in better ways. Like it or not, it's here to stay, and it is changing our culture. Best to try to to improve how that change happens.
You should stop reading Facebook propaganda and get the actual news. For one "social media" isn't "the net", the age limit of 16 isn't mandatory, it's only the default if the member states don't set an age of their own, and all the kids need to get access to social media is either parental consent or they need to state that they are older than 16. And we all know how hard that is....
Facebook lobbyists are once again blowing a small thing out of proportion to attack the agreement as a whole, which is far more dangerous for them. According to the agreement, companies can be fined up to 4% of their revenue for data breaches, and they are legally obliged to report data breaches, not doing so would result in a felony charge. That is what the lobbyists are after, but the "think of the children" card plays better
There is a need to protect young teenagers from 'do not forget' tracking, advertising, their bikini photos landing on porn sites, even from cyber-bullying. But how many 15 year-old schoolgirls will to agree to this? At that age, their minds are on proving their independence and demanding public approval.
I think 'forewarned is forearmed'. Like sex education, adults need to give 12 year-old children 'internet education' which explains the bad things that can happen. Plus, the education is more detailed as they turn 13, then 14.
With child-safe phones extinct, the ubiquitous smart phone with free wi-fi, or the alternative, mobile wi-fi; means young teenagers cannot be limited to voice calls. Even that requires a safety lesson: If there's no calling number displayed, send it to voice-mail.
I'm sure that the 15 year old's with a smart phone would all obey the rule and not use a false date of birth
teach us to stop communicating at an early age,,, keeps the social interaction at a minimum... word never gets around...?
For all of you falling for the "think of the children" narrative, you are misled by corporate propagande. What the lobbyists want has nothing to do with children, no one really cares about that. The rule change is largely just a declaration of intent, and a measure to make sure that all member states at least have a minimum age defined. If you read closely, the member states are still free to choose their own standard, the age 16 requirement only applies if nothing else is defined
The real reason why the propaganda machine is running on full steam is the other provisions in the law, which would mean that it would become illegal to not disclose data breaches, hiding those would become a felony, and that companies could be charged with up to 4% of their total revenue for any data breaches. That is what the lobbyists are fighting against this draft law.
You both seem very uninformed and here I thought the majority of Europeans were less informed than some Asian countries like Japan.
Kids shouldn't be banned. "Real name" policies should be banned. Parents know who their kids are, no one else needs to, or should. And the idiocy they get up to online should not follow them forever, if they don't want it to.
Corporate control of social media should be banned. Probably any centralized social media should be banned! But of course, now I am dreaming...
Asia considers Europe as a bunch of dinosaurs, soon to be extinct. I must agree. Seriously. Imagine that this WILL come true and our kids will be banned from the 'net till 16. What will be the effects of competitiveness and innovation - not to the kids but for the Europe itself? We will deprive our next generation from the ability to learn and develop, whereas other continents encourage their youth to go forth and change the world.
The Chinese and the Japanese hold a great respect for the various European civilizations, and I stronglysuggest you don't put words into their mouths.
This article specifically mentions social media, not the internet in general, so you apparently think Facebook == the entire internet, and if that's the case you wouldn't have gained anything from it anyway. Or, perhaps, you didn't bother to read even the summary before writing that slew on nonsense? I disagree with it too, but at least make a well-reasoned argument. They should be allowed to do so because a 14 year old can freely talk to anyone on the street, and there's no difference speaking with strangers in real life than online. Furthermore, it deprives them of the chance to meet people from far away, which people never did before without traveling themselves (unless you were one the few who had a "pen pal" and it actually worked out). Your argument is simply an emotional appeal to inertia, and you do realize 40 years ago they were complaining about how setting a minimum age for smoking would heavily cripple the United States of America's youth?
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
The lobbyist actually got a small victory: The EU parliament wanted 5%.
They seem to go well together.
Ban the guns... let them stab each other!
There's nothing as pathetic as a Freddie Mercury reach around.
Ban them from online gaming as well? My mother has apparently been around the world a fair few times to my surprise.
The article states that child safety experts as well as tech representatives stated objections but then only quotes two tech oriented people. I am left wondering if any child safety experts disagree with the proposed rules other than a person with a website that obviously has an interest in young people using social media or a tech consultant who has operated what looks like a PAC or political "thinktank." If there were any legitimate voices raised then why are they not in the article?
The key problem I foresee is that future services will not operate on the simple accounts of today as employed by many websites. It will become fundamental to the operation of such future systems to be able to hold and process data of all people, regardless of age. Much of this will be to provide age appropriate experiences and educational materials. The upshot is that future systems will be intelligent enough to self-manage the concerns such laws were introduced to deal with. So, there needs to be some leeway here when writing these laws.
The EU isn't banning kids from doing anything, it's banning companies from harvesting personal data on kids who aren't old enough to give consent to have their data harvested.
Actually, it isn't even doing that. It was considering doing so, and has just decided not to. The first formal step to confirm this is expected tomorrow.
The mandatory increase in age limit was opposed not just by tech business as you might expect, but also by online safety advocates concerned that it would backfire.
Nothing to see here, move along.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Maybe they will actually get something out of teenagers now. Come to think of it, lets make it a 13-80 ban on social media. Human Interaction- the horror!
The way facebook has been behaving, they had it coming.
Can we ban them from the streets as well? I'm tired of the little shits in this neighborhood.
Kids need to learn how to interact with other human beings in real life before they start doing it online. "Kids these days" are completely dysfunctional in person and have no idea how to handle personal social interaction.
All it means is once that data is gone, the data is gone and forgotten. No recording the conversation, no keeping the address of the child, no keeping when or who they contacted.
This, in fact, would be BLISS if applied to people over that age. For people who decide they want to do that.
So the solution to social media is to keep that logging in credential on the client computer, in the app on that machine, tied to it. But on the server, RETAIN NOTHING.
Totally would NOT ban kids under 16 from using social media, it just means they can't be monetised. Hence the histrionics here.
And if you're going to bring up how difficult it would be to find paedos, first it would make finding paedoes easier, since the credentials are stored on the client machine, so whoever owns it either has a kid using it or is doing something wrong. It would make it harder for paedos to find kids on social media, since they can't get a single dump from a hacker's penetration of the server to download the kids information. And it would stop the police or government from being able to spy in on the conversations, but then again, where better for a paedo to hide than in the police task force on fighting it, where they get at work legal access to all this stuff they get off on, and an early access to whether they're being investigated.
The reason for the scare here is because the kids can't be monetised the same way as adults can.
How about banning people who ACT younger than 16 from social media?
Social media is built for kids. I mean, if kids are banned from social media, who is going to explain to parents how it all works?
The stupidity in this sort of proposal is mind-bending on so many levels.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Could we just ban them from speaking on XBox live and posting to /. please? If they manage to do that, hell I'll move to Yourope.
When I see those phone-junkies getting younger and younger, and kids having problems letting their phone go even for a short period of time, a blanket ban of Facebook & Co for minors in general would be an excellent idea.
My kids gave their own gmail addresses (as their parent's addresses and just lied about their age) (I eventually noticed :-)
they go tthe gmail accounts by giving each other's email addresses when asked and lied. so once they had one account they propagated their accounts through all the usual suspects (instagram, facebook, google+ etc) and htey were 10 and 11 at the time. Do the politicians think the kids care what they legislate?
I've always thought that companies should not handle anyone's data, but centralization is quite efficient, so alternatives never gain traction. This sort of push could help people learn about the benefits of privacy, decentralization and data protection at a very young age.
You mean kids under 16 have to socialize with REAL people!? IN PERSON!?
*faints*
I had social media as a kid.
It was called MSN and we only talked to friends we knew in person.
We also didn't share every single detail of our life to the public. (Those are the kids that need to be limited.)
This is totally unenforceable without some sort of invasive internet user identification system to prove the age of somebody signing up for social media. Without it, all the little angels have to do is lie about their age & boom social media account created.
Does the proposed rule actually absolve the company of liability if the child lies?
How does the EU handle things like statutory rape and minors entering into contracts? In the US, the minor lying about their age isn't necessarily a valid defense.
If the child claims to be 16 and posts selfies of their clearly-not-16yo self or discusses age-revealing things, can the site claim that it's not liable? The fact that the posted information is probably being actively mined makes it even less likely that the site can claim ignorance of the child's lie.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Another problem with parental permission is when the parents are the problem.
Say child abuse but don't think this is the only problem
*cough* backwards parents *cough*
What a misleading headline.
The Facebook decided that if they couldn't do tracking cookies on everyone, then Facebook will throw a hissy-fit over it.
The EU did not ban showing anything on Facebook, it only demanded no personal, private data and tracking collection on kids.
Facebook can allow them on anomized profiles and advertize toeverybody including kids.
Just only without tracking your every move big government/police state style.
Facebook is putting your children in danger BY TRACKING everything they do!
When data leaks are common occurences in companies.
It will happen to Facebook too!
As another poster explained further:.
"Yes, as usual this is just more anti-EU tosh from Slashdot.
The EU isn't banning kids from doing anything, it's banning companies from harvesting personal data on kids who aren't old enough to give consent to have their data harvested.
The fact that means social media would have to stop providing the service to kids under 16 is a function of the fact sites like Facebook insist that they must collect personal information. Kids will still be perfectly well allowed to use such sites if they can use anonymous aliases, and if their data isn't harvested to build a profile on them. They can still advertise to them, it just can't be based on personal data.
The fault here is entirely on social media companies for insisting that they should be able to collect every bit of personal data about every person no matter what. As you say this law actually protects kids not old enough to give consent more than anything - a social media site requiring personal data is a far greater risk to a kid than a site that allows them to provide no personal data because there's always a risk that that personal data will be leaked."
Social media does not exist, it is called social networks.
They are apart of computer networking, anything you do on it is a form of being social.
Also "kids under 16" are not kids. From thirteen you are a teenager, that’s what the 'teen' in teenager means. At these ages the law usually is that they are under the guardian of an adult. Government laws like this are basically telling people what to do over other laws that cover this already.
Stop telling us what to do.
Stop saying social media, it is not media like broadcasting (TV, radio).
Treat teenagers with respect and respect will be given. Dont expect them to give a fuck when you treat them like a kid.