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."

Comments

It's not exactly as stated in the post.

[Sique]

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.

Re:It's not exactly as stated in the post.

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed and the bill also wants to harmonize the data privacy laws across the EU so we don't have another facebook incident over a court ruling.

For those who don't know (warning: soap drama): Facebook was sued in Belgium about using tracking cookies even for non-members of facebook. Facebook argued then that it complied with the privacy laws in Ireland and therefor it should also apply in Belgium. They lost and now they say those cookies are for security and will block public facebook pages for everyone in Belgium. The belgian privacy commission contacted their counterparts and now France, Germany, Netherlands and Spain joined and are asking to apply the ruling.

*dramatic soap drama voice*
What will happen? Will facebook also block public pages in those nations? Will those nations back down for their facebook addicted non-member citizens?

Re:It's not exactly as stated in the post.

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I actually looked, but not fully read TFA. It states in the first couple of paragraphs, that only parental permission is required for underage kids to use Internet services.

So this is like a:

"Mom, can I use Facebook . . . Dad said it is OK!"

This is a tempest in a teapot.

Social Media can still work

[Jack Griffin]

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.

Re:Good!

[Halo1]

Yes, because gay kids seeking support online is valueless, right?

They still can seek support online, also without parental supervision. This ruling only states that Facebook, or any other company or organisation, cannot require them to divulge their personal details (at least not without parental consent). And yes, that does sound like a good thing to me, especially for kids that may be insecure about their sexuality.

Re:Dinosaurs

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

As an older gay man, I'm sure that if there was any form of support in the `70's it would of been a good thing. Fortunately kids who need support on these issues have resources in libraries, school counselors and any number of phone support groups.
 
I approve of separating the younglings from some parts of the web, at least until their brains have stabilised enough not to believe they are evil scum if they're gay, or that as a muslim they must support DAESH, just because someone said so.
 
  It's not a bad thing to go outside, and see and interact with real people.

Misinformation propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

They have already decided not to do this

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.