Lawyer Rewrites Instagram's Privacy Policy So Kids and Parents Can Have a Meaningful Talk About Privacy (qz.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lawyer Rewrites Instagram's Privacy Policy So Kids and Parents Can Have a Meaningful Talk About Privacy (qz.com)

Posted by msmash on Monday January 9, 2017 @04:40AM from the simplifying-things dept.

Kids, of age between 12 and 15, are increasingly joining Facebook's Instagram service, but according to a research, they likely don't even understand what they are signing up for. Jenny Afia, a privacy law expert at Schillings, a UK-based law firm, rewrote Instagram's terms of service in child-friendly language, so that not only the kids but their parents are able to understand what things are at stake. Highlighted are the changes the lawyer has made: Officially you own any original pictures and videos you post, but we are allowed to use them, and we can let others use them as well, anywhere around the world. Other people might pay us to use them and we will not pay you for that. [...] We may keep, use and share your personal information with companies connected with Instagram. This information includes your name, email address, school, where you live, pictures, phone number, your likes and dislikes, where you go, who your friends are, how often you use Instagram, and any other personal information we find such as your birthday or who you are chatting with, including in private messages (DMs). [...] We might send you adverts connected to your interests which we are monitoring. You cannot stop us doing this and it will not always be obvious that it is an advert.

95 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Irony by MobyDisk · 2017-01-09 04:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

Slashdot's front page has:
1. Lawyer Rewrites Instagram's Privacy Policy So Kids and Parents Can Have a Meaningful Talk About Privacy
2. IMDb Ignores New Law Banning It From Publishing Actors' Ages Online, Cites Free Speech Violations
So it is legal for to sell a child's personal information, but not okay for IMDB to publish the ages of grown adults. Does anyone else see this as crazy?
1. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 04:48 · Score: 0
  
  Only in the U.S.A.
2. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  it's only legal to sell poor children's personal information... rich people are still above the law.
3. Re:Irony by bsolar · 2017-01-09 04:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You are comparing apples with oranges. IMDB claims it has right to publish the age without the actor's permission, Instagram claims it has right to sell your informations if you agree to use their services, thus granting them permission to do so.
4. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  Random worthless children vs. rich actors. Guess who lawyers care more about.
5. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  Grown adults who have purposefully put themselves in the public eye.
6. Re:Irony by erapert · 2017-01-09 05:04 · Score: 2
  
  Did you read TFS?
  Did you notice that it's a lawyer who took time out of his day to rewrite Instagram's policy so that children could understand it?
7. Re:Irony by TWX · 2017-01-09 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Heh. It's not the rich actors that are impacted so much by California's decision, it's all of the other actors whose names are listed in the end credits rather than the opening titles.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
8. Re:Irony by Anubis+IV · 2017-01-09 05:06 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  You do realize that the summary makes it pretty clear it's a UK lawyer rewriting what are presumably their terms of service, right?
  The US shares plenty of responsibility when it comes to weird laws and terms of service, but the law affecting IMDB is a California one (which is its own brand of nuts) rather than a national law, and the Instagram terms of service are bad worldwide, not just in the US. If what you got out of those two headlines is that this is a US problem, you may be correct technically, in that the US suffers from them as well, but you've missed the bigger picture: this is a global problem that needs addressing through both cultural and legal changes.
9. Re:Irony by CaptainDork · 2017-01-09 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Did you notice it's a she?
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
10. Re:Irony by kelemvor4 · 2017-01-09 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Slashdot's front page has: 1. Lawyer Rewrites Instagram's Privacy Policy So Kids and Parents Can Have a Meaningful Talk About Privacy 2. IMDb Ignores New Law Banning It From Publishing Actors' Ages Online, Cites Free Speech Violations
  So it is legal for to sell a child's personal information, but not okay for IMDB to publish the ages of grown adults. Does anyone else see this as crazy?
  Not necessarily. If the child is an actor, and happens to live in kalifornia they do get some special privileges.
  
  But your point that it is completely absurd is 100% accurate.
11. Re: Irony by TheOuterLinux · 2017-01-09 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Actors have more economic value than children. And, gov depends on using social networking as crime prevention. So, get them while they're young, I guess.
12. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  Instagram claims it has right to sell your informations if you agree to use their services, thus granting them permission to do so.
  The most shocking thing here IMO is that it grants them the right to sell any information they find about you, on or off their platform.
13. Re:Irony by sg_oneill · 2017-01-09 05:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Instagram claims it has right to sell your informations if you agree to use their services, thus granting them permission to do so.
  This is of course assuming a child is competent to enter into a contract, which is not considered a valid assumption in most countries. (I have no idea about the US, but here, judges somewhat frown upon the idea that a child can forfeit rights because of an agreement as they are not considered competent to understand the implications.)
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
14. Re:Irony by MobyDisk · 2017-01-09 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  good point
15. Re:Irony by MobyDisk · 2017-01-09 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  fair enough
16. Re:Irony by Anubis+IV · 2017-01-09 05:35 · Score: 2
  
  Ages are public record. Public information is generally considered free to post without restriction nationwide.
  Besides which, ages are nothing. My county publishes at least the following for every homeowner as part of their public record, and this is just what I'm aware of:
  - First and last names
  - Home address
  - Mortgage company
  - Sales price and date
  - Tax exemptions applied
  - Taxes paid
  With a name or an address, you can search their database to get information on that person, when they moved in/refinanced, and whether they have been granted a property tax exemption for being a senior citizen. If you look back through the historical records and see that the deed listing goes from two names to one, you can tell roughly when they got divorced. And while you can't pull it up online, the mortgage company's name is available through the public record itself, and makes it easy to engage in snail mail phishing. I received countless letters after I moved in, telling me I needed to sign up for their mortgage payment plan. Each of them used my mortgage company's name prominently to add legitimacy to their statements. In some cases they were even postmarked from official sounding departments in my state's capital on a street that just so happened to have the same name as my county, lending even more legitimacy and urgency to their warnings of dire consequences if I didn't sign up.
  All of which is to say, I get actors not wanting to have age discrimination against them, but if someone wants to find their age, the weird Californian law does nothing to stop Wikipedia, fan sites, or Joe Schmo from posting it, since it doesn't apply to any of them. It's an odd law that targets a valid use of information in the public domain. And if we're going to go after information that shouldn't be in the public domain, there are plenty of other targets that should be hit before age.
17. Re:Irony by HeckRuler · 2017-01-09 05:44 · Score: 2
  
  What? No. They're both apples. They both claim the right to hand out information about kids.
  The difference is that according to California, what IMDB is doing is illegal. Because it affects hollywood big business. Nobody gives a fuck about the poor masses on Instagram.
  I agree with IMDB. Public knowledge is public. For Instagram, anything posted to the public is free game, but there's could be some expectation of privacy if you send someone a private message about something personal.
18. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but here's why folks are mad. Hint: it's not that they clicked OK with the user agreement, it's because there is little choice!
  - It is impossible to participate in the connected world without these services. So the 'agreement' is slimy extortion.
  - Companies have PRAYED for such a loophole --> create an invaluable service that require participants to release what, under any other circumstances, would be considered creepy.
  Here's a physical world example: You are asked point blank by a stranger for your personal information. You decline for all the human/civil/right/creepy reasons.
  Next you are invited to an important meeting at a club, you must attend if you want to grow/achieve with your life. Yet before the restaurant will let you in or give you a sandwich they want your personal information. The same info the stranger/bum/thief wanted earlier, but this time it's dressed up in a legal document that paints the requestor as 'merely a steward of your data' and you as a willing, gushing, fully supportive customer. Now suddenly it's OK with the info exchange?
  It's extortion & prostitution.
19. Re:Irony by lgw · 2017-01-09 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  The way it works is the parent gives consent, according to the privacy policy, EULA, and whatever else, by allowing the child to use the service. Fairly twisted, but that's law for you.
  At least they're openly stating in clear language what their business model is.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
20. Re:Irony by bsolar · 2017-01-09 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Instagram obviously assumes that the children's legal guardian entered the contract. In any case this is not the point: Instagram *has a contract*, the question eventually being whether it's enforceable or not. IMDB has *no contract at all* and it claims it doesn't need one.
21. Re:Irony by pr0fessor · 2017-01-09 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure where you are form but I'm in Kansas I can look up all kinds of information on any address but it doesn't give the owner. Although it did come in handy when looking to purchase a house.
  Property Value {multiple years}
  Property Tax {multiple years}
  # structures on property
  sq feet
  year built
  each time it was sold and for what price
22. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 07:34 · Score: 0
  
  You poor thing. Have a cup of coffee while you rage at the fact that people who aren't like you exist.
23. Re: Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  Real property owners are public information in the Usa. Whether you can lookup that information online varies from one locality to the next, but you can always walk to n the courthouse and lookup the informtion (or hire someone to do it). If you dont want your real name on public property records, there are some legal tactics you can use to hide the info. But property ownership records are public.
24. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 09:57 · Score: 0
  
  At least they're openly stating in clear language what their business model is.
  The actual terms of service are not clear language.
  This lawyer gave a (close to) equivalent version written in clear language, so non-lawyers can understand it more easily.
25. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 12:28 · Score: 0
  
  That sound is me groaning...
  "Big bad company does bad things to their customers. We need new laws to protect customers!"
  Why not, "Big bad company does bad things to their customers. Customers abandon big bad company. Big bad company goes out of business!"?
  I would like to say I am amazed that Wells Fargo is still in business. But I'm not really amazed--just terribly dissappointed in their customers. Wells Fargo has thousands of employees getting paid bonuses for creating fake accounts in their customers' names and charging those customers fraudulent fees. That scandal got widespread news coverage. If I had had an account with Wells Fargo, I would have closed it immediately. But that is not what their customers have done. Instead, Wells Fargo is posting record profits.
  As a prosecutor I wouldn't even bother investigating Wells Fargo. My ability to punish them would be limited. And when the victims can impose the death penalty without my help, but refuse to impose any penalty at all, why should I bother? As a legislator, why should I add yet more laws to the books that require some third party for enforcement? If the customer is able but unwilling to walk away from bad behaviour, they deserve what they get.
26. Re:Irony by Bert64 · 2017-01-09 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  IMDB is aggregating and republishing information that is already in the public domain, about people who have chosen a career that puts them in public view.
  Instagram is using lawyer speak to claim they have a contract with kids parents, knowing full well that not only have the parents never even seen the agreement but neither the parents nor the kids would even understand it.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
27. Re: Irony by ememisya · 2017-01-09 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  You cannot stop us doing this and it will not always be obvious that it is an advert.
  Well, one could always, y'know not make me try to stop you in vain, and say maybe, don't do it? I'll wait until a guarantee could be made with real privacy in online services.
28. Re:Irony by pnutjam · 2017-01-10 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  My kids school has issued ipads. Apple puts all sorts of management roadblocks in your way to prevent you from managing a child's account without another Apple device. So the school says I should put an account for myself on it, that way it's not like I'm pretending my kid is over 13. This has the added benefit of exempting my kids from any protection for under 13 data collection on any apps we install.
  Yay!
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
Headline... Headache by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 04:50 · Score: 0

I Hope He Didn't Rewrite It Using A Capital Letter For Every Word.
1. Re:Headline... Headache by cayenne8 · 2017-01-09 04:58 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I think we need to legislate that ALL legal TOS and the like be written in this type of CLEAR and concise and easily understandable verbiage.
  There's no excuse for the common man to be held to agreements signed that no one but a lawyer can understand.
  If the general public is to be held to these agreements, they must be required to be written in terms that at least a 15 year old can understand.
  I know, I know, that's STILL above the heads of the average person by a long shot, but at least it is shooting at a reasonable level for public acceptance.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
2. Re: Headline... Headache by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  Titles... How do they work?
3. Re:Headline... Headache by Barsteward · 2017-01-09 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  First time i've seen a lawyer called "Jenny" referred to as a "He"
  
  --
  "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
4. Re:Headline... Headache by stranger_to_himself · 2017-01-09 05:10 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I think we need to legislate that ALL legal TOS and the like be written in this type of CLEAR and concise and easily understandable verbiage.
  There's no excuse for the common man to be held to agreements signed that no one but a lawyer can understand.
  If the general public is to be held to these agreements, they must be required to be written in terms that at least a 15 year old can understand.
  I know, I know, that's STILL above the heads of the average person by a long shot, but at least it is shooting at a reasonable level for public acceptance.
  It's already enforced in this way for consent to a medical procedure or in academic research. Consent is not considered valid unless the subject understands what they are agreeing to. The frustrating thing for academic researchers is that we have to abide by these standards whereas commercial firms can write garbage in legalese and then do what they like..
5. Re:Headline... Headache by stranger_to_himself · 2017-01-09 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  I think we need to legislate that ALL legal TOS and the like be written in this type of CLEAR and concise and easily understandable verbiage.
  There's no excuse for the common man to be held to agreements signed that no one but a lawyer can understand.
  If the general public is to be held to these agreements, they must be required to be written in terms that at least a 15 year old can understand.
  I know, I know, that's STILL above the heads of the average person by a long shot, but at least it is shooting at a reasonable level for public acceptance.
  It's already enforced in this way for consent to a medical procedure or in academic research. Consent is not considered valid unless the subject understands what they are agreeing to. The frustrating thing for academic researchers is that we have to abide by these standards whereas commercial firms can write garbage in legalese and then do what they like..
  Replying to myself - I guess that's the difference between 'consent' and 'informed consent'.
6. Re:Headline... Headache by jm007 · 2017-01-09 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  The name refers to the last name.... which used to be Jenner. Confusing, I know.
7. Re:Headline... Headache by Princeofcups · 2017-01-09 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  I think we need to legislate that ALL legal TOS and the like be written in this type of CLEAR and concise and easily understandable verbiage.
  The problem is that everyday verbiage does not properly represent the law. I know, I know, it seems to be obfuscated double speak, but really it's a very precise language that lawyers are taught to speak to AVOID misunderstanding.
  
  --
  The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
8. Re:Headline... Headache by Asmodae · 2017-01-09 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Error on the side of caution (i.e. the customer), and don't be a dick about trying to weasel out of the agreement. No problems.
Great... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 04:50 · Score: 0

maybe he can rewrite the Privacy Policy from Apple, Google and every other Internet Service, so they can also "not give a fuck" about it...?
1. Re:Great... by CaptainDork · 2017-01-09 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe he is transgendered and you know that but you didn't tell us because you only think of yourself.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
2. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly! Somebody else here gets it. He is the Jesus Pronoun to be used with this person, clearly. His name is Jenner, just like that rat from Secret of NIMH. I'm sick of these transgendereds!
I already simplify it for my kids by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2017-01-09 04:56 · Score: 5, Informative

1) Anything you post online will be there forever
2) Always lie about your age, use a fake name, and never provide a real address
3) Don't post nude pics
4) Don't post anything racist, etc.
5) Don't post anything illegal, etc.
6) At any time, I can haz your phone/computer/account and I may burn your devices and your online profiles down to the waterline if I don't like what I see
1. Re:I already simplify it for my kids by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 05:22 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Fortunately kids always do the opposite of what their parents tell them, so I'm looking forward to nude selfies from your teenage daughter on /r/gonewild/ when the time comes. Thanks for setting that up.
2. Re:I already simplify it for my kids by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't hazing one of the problems with social media use in the first place? Some parent....
3. Re:I already simplify it for my kids by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  So you don't already simplify the Instagram privacy policy for your kids, you just give them generic advice, which is fine as far as it goes but not remotely the same thing.
  Also #6 is needlessly autocratic, slightly narcissistic, and (if you ever executed on that threat) quite possibly abusive.
4. Re:I already simplify it for my kids by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  I don't like #4. All this "you can't say anything about another race" is BS is is what causes all the problems we have in the first place. People post/say prejudice/racist things all the time and it isn't the end of the world and is actually healthy. Asians are, on average, terrible fucking drivers. If your kids is posting about learning to drive and someone says - be careful if you are in driver ed with an asian - that is GOOD ADVICE. It may be racist but it is not something that should be censored just to make everyone not-offended.
  This anti-racism, where we can't even discuss statistical differences of different races, is what is causing backlash against the very races the "rules" are supposed to be "helping". Yes, these are all definitely "correlation, not causation" situations. In other words Asians are, on average, bad drivers because of cultural reasons, not their actual genetics. Put an asian kid through the same life as a white kid and they will drive just as well. But in reality that is not what happens. Asians are not raised by whites and blacks are not raised by whites so there are differences that continue to permeate that happen to be correlated with race because they are taught by parents that ... you guessed it... are the same race.
5. Re:I already simplify it for my kids by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  >Isn't hazing one of the problems with social media
  Isn't picking on people a regular human endevour all through history by all genders, societies, and social castes?
  FTFY.
  Social Media just makes outreach easier. The outreach itself. People need to be taught politeness & respect- when unattended humans will cause strife. Only after several beat-downs or witnessing tragedy that strikes close to their own heart do most people become empathetic and more courteous to others. Is that not obvious?
6. Re:I already simplify it for my kids by gosand · 2017-01-09 06:19 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Kids do not understand why #1 is a bad thing.
  You have to follow that up with real-world examples of why and how that could be a problem for them.
  I told my daughter "imagine you sent a selfie to your best friend where you had your finger in your nose as a joke. Then what if she thought it was funny and shared it with other friends... then it made it all around your school and people started teasing you about picking your nose." Pretty mild example, but I think she got it. Basically I said once you send something, you have no control over what happens to it.
  And just like everything else, they will only truly learn if they are allowed to make mistakes on their own.
  I did shit all the time that my parents told me not to do, and I learned - both in good ways and in bad ways - from doing that.
  Fortunately for me, there was no way to document those things back then like there are today. :)
  
  --
  
  My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
7. Re:I already simplify it for my kids by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2017-01-09 06:31 · Score: 0
  
  >> Also #6 is needlessly autocratic, slightly narcissistic, and (if you ever executed on that threat) quite possibly abusive.
  
  Wow, I didn't know my son was on Slashdot. Thanks for the...er...thoughts. Now go clean your home.
8. Re:I already simplify it for my kids by AthanasiusKircher · 2017-01-09 07:06 · Score: 2
  
  Also #6 is needlessly autocratic, slightly narcissistic, and (if you ever executed on that threat) quite possibly abusive.
  "Abusive"? ABUSIVE?! Are you serious?
  If the parent does such things arbitrarily, then I suppose it might be considered "autocratic," but guess what -- families with minor children are NOT democracies! Yes, parents should try to gradually grant more "rights" to their kids over time and help them understand freedom (and I personally believe we're an overprotective society now that doesn't introduce enough freedom early), but ultimately kids are under their parents' care until they cease to be a minor (or are "emancipated" legally).
  So a parent is not only responsible for trying to raise the kid well, but the parent is ALSO legally a party to a child's actions, if it can be shown the parent was negligent in supervision or something. Thus, it's perfectly reasonable that -- in sufficiently dire circumstances -- a parent may restrict or even delete online material to protect both the child and him/herself.
  Wow. "Daddy stopped me from logging into Facebook -- I'm calling the Child Abuse Hotline!" I just don't even know what to say.
9. Re:I already simplify it for my kids by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  What you fail to understand is there's a difference between saying something about another race, and being racist.
  "Asians are, on average, terrible fucking drivers" -- not racist.
  "Chinks and Japs can't drive for shit" -- racist.
  "Black people tend to commit more violent crime than white people." -- not racist.
  "Shit-stain apes sure do kill a lot of people and should go back to Africa." -- racist.
  Are you catching on?
10. Re:I already simplify it for my kids by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  If you really want to be a jerk about it, bring up potty training: "What if you had been able to post rants about how you don't understand why using a potty is necessary, because diapers work just fine?"
11. Re:I already simplify it for my kids by zedaroca · 2017-01-09 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  Your suggestion:
  
  2) Always lie about your age, use a fake name, and never provide a real address
  Facebook's Terms of Service:
  
  You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.
  I don't think that complies with the CFAA. Violating the terms of service is illegal. You are teaching them to be criminals!!!
  Besides this little detail, your simplification for kids seems pretty good. Changing the law so that they aren't considered criminals for following it is the solution.
12. Re:I already simplify it for my kids by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 15:21 · Score: 0
  
  "Fortunately kids always do the opposite of what their parents tell them". Oh no, I taught them to post only their own name, photo and nude selfies, but now that means that they only post OTHER PEOPLE's nude selfies....
  SOMEONE PLEASE GIMME THE UNDO BUTTON!
13. Re:I already simplify it for my kids by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  Heh - I think that was another rando 12 year old simply due to the obliviousness. Or someone who's really, really horribad at trolling.
  Anyone sufficiently motivated/having the right access and targeting you on the internet can 'haz your phone/computer/account and may burn your devices and your online profiles down to the waterline'.
  I just assumed that was the point you were trying to make. :)
  PS: Your instructions are roughly what I tell my niece and nephews myself, varying for age/understanding/detail - which I also feel is implicit. I do seriously agree with you on the overprotectiveness bit. With all the microexpression, safe space, and other crap in high schools and colleges it's almost like some think issuing them security blankets and binkies would magically help them too... arg.
14. Re:I already simplify it for my kids by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  Violating the terms of service is illegal. You are teaching them to be criminals!!!
  Please don't speak of what you do not know. It just makes you look like an idiot.
  Instead determine where you went wrong or seek guidance on the aforementioned idiocy.
  Hint: At least bother to read the wikipedia article. It's oversimplified but gives you a better idea of what the CFAA is all about and why it's so important.
  I do agree with you on changing the law though. Something that made sense would be even better.
Would like to see more info on "where you go" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 05:02 · Score: 0

I think this is the one people don't appreciate.
They know exactly where you are every second of the day.
They know how long you take to go to the bathroom.
They know if you are driving over the speed limit or roll through a stop sign.
They know which friends you sit with during lunch, which ones are on your bus, which ones you share classes with.
They know your friends finished the test and left the room faster than you.
Without using the app they know all of this simply by your location.
1. Re:Would like to see more info on "where you go" by CaptainDork · 2017-01-09 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  I circumvent this by never actually visiting the places I'm located.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
2. Re:Would like to see more info on "where you go" by desdinova+216 · 2017-01-09 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  but everywhere you go, there you are.
3. Re:Would like to see more info on "where you go" by CaptainDork · 2017-01-09 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Says my damned iPhone.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
4. Re:Would like to see more info on "where you go" by another_twilight · 2017-01-09 15:14 · Score: 1
  
  Not always. And when I do, it isn't always me.
1. FUCK FACEBOOK. 2. GOTO 1. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 05:07 · Score: 0

I sure as hell would never let my kids use these shitty privacy-dissecting "services" from scumbag marketeers.
I'm a grown up by unixcorn · 2017-01-09 05:15 · Score: 1

Written in this way, even I am scared of what they can do with my data. Like most, I typically ignore the TOS as I blunder through it. Maybe this attorney, or some other attorney could do this for all the popular social media, music and other sites that collect data about me. It's probably too late for me but kids could benefit.
1. Re:I'm a grown up by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2017-01-09 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  I really would like it if YouTube's TOS got the same treatment. I don't follow what reuse is allowed of uploaded content, esp. on through channels, e.g. network TV.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
This should be required for ToS to be valid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 05:19 · Score: 0

It should be a legal requirement for all terms of service to have a version which is suitable for a 12 year old child to understand. Any ToS without a simple understandable version should be invalid and have no legal weight.
1. Re:This should be required for ToS to be valid by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 07:58 · Score: 0
  
  Even better: an ELI5 version so the Trump Faithful can understand it
TOS Simplicity...however, ... by TheOuterLinux · 2017-01-09 05:21 · Score: 2

I think TOS should be written at an 8th grade reading level just like they do with Informed Consent for research studies. However, parents should be shot for letting their 12-15 year old have a smart phone. People are making FB profiles for new borns for Christ sake. Sad....
This raises an interesting question. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 05:23 · Score: 0

In the US at least, minors cannot enter into any legally binding contracts, so seems like this would extend to terms of use. So, maybe all these kids can't legally use these apps without their parent's permission. :)
If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 05:26 · Score: 0

If only all contracts were written to be easy to read (laws, too). I've lost count of the number of times I've told somebody, "the EULA you clicked through gives them permission to do that" to which they never believe me. I hate the 20-page-long fine-print contracts which people are expected to read and agree to (and yes, I've not run some games and programs just because it wasn't worth my time to actually read what they wanted me to agree to).
I'm guessing this is one of those, "if it goes to court a simple document would have too much ambiguity." Either that, or fear if what they were doing was understood they'd scare off all their customers so they are hiding it in legalese. They are probably right, too.
Here's my rewrite by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 05:32 · Score: 0

All your base are belong to us, biaaatch.
Anything Facebook is right out if privacy matters by OmniGeek · 2017-01-09 05:35 · Score: 3, Informative

The article is informative, but alas, hardly surprising. I read Facebook's TOS recently when considering an account to connect with friends, and was extremely put off by their insistence on knowing *everything* about me, to the point where, if news reports are to be believed, they will buy data on subscribers from private aggregators to fill in their dossier. It is explicitly clear from their TOS that they reserve the right to snoop all the files on my PC and portable devices. "Fuggeddabouddit."

--

"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
What is this about ''for kids'' ? by Alain+Williams · 2017-01-09 05:46 · Score: 4, Informative

Something like this is needed for every site for adults, most of who cannot be bothered to read any ToS and would not understand them if they did. Hell: I suspect a lot of adults would still not remember much about a ToS written like this even if you could persuade them to read it.
This written by someone who does read ToS and frequently refuses to use a service as a result.
1. Re:What is this about ''for kids'' ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously. I use Instagram occasionally, but I had no idea they were granted the right to sell rights to my photo to third parties. Guess I won't even be using it sporadically anymore.
2. Re:What is this about ''for kids'' ? by Princeofcups · 2017-01-09 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  What about social obfuscation? I'm surprised by how many people have no problem sharing information about themselves. It's the narcissistic society we live in. Personally, I have already started creating a fictitious me. My goal is for sites like Facebook to start aggregating my new true history. It will make my day when I go to a job interview and they say, "Our HR department did some research. Were you really an alchemist in Tibet?"
  
  --
  The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
3. Re:What is this about ''for kids'' ? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 09:03 · Score: 0
  
  I just emailed this to my daughter who is 18. I wish someone had written it when she was 12. Would have helped reinforce what I was preaching and driven it home a little deeper.
  Luckily some did sink in e.g. Facebook being a worthless, stinking asshole of a company that no one should miss if it disappeared off the face of the earth, etc. And she turned out not to be a total dumbass when it comes to privacy. But still, every little bit would have helped.
4. Re:What is this about ''for kids'' ? by Waccoon · 2017-01-09 18:50 · Score: 1
  
  would not understand them if they did
  Given that 99% of them roughly translate to "Fuck you", they're pretty easy to understand.
Question by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2017-01-09 06:11 · Score: 1

I thought a minor child cannot sign a contract, or legally license the IP they generate (cf. copyrights on images), without parental approval.

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Names of other occupants by tepples · 2017-01-09 06:22 · Score: 1

My county publishes at least the following for every homeowner as part of their public record, and this is just what I'm aware of:
- First and last names [etc]
Does it publish only the name of the owner or also the names of other occupants, be they the owner's family members or lessees? The "kids" in the headline would fall into "the owner's family members".
1. Re:Names of other occupants by Anubis+IV · 2017-01-09 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Only the owner/anyone listed in the deed. In my case, I was unmarried when I bought the place and did all of the refinancing last year in my name alone, so my wife's name isn't in the records associated with our address, so far as I know.
  Even so, having my name added to the public domain was unavoidable, and certainly not something that I opted-into willingly. Had there been a means to prevent it while still buying the house, I would have done so. And yet, my information is in the public domain, whether I like it or not.
  There's already plenty of bigger fish to fry when it comes to information being in the public domain without our ability to opt-out. The day someone was born is small potatoes.
Prove to me there is no other way to grow/achieve by tepples · 2017-01-09 06:25 · Score: 1

It is impossible to participate in the connected world without these services.
Disputed. One could "participate in the connected world" before these particular services came into being. For example, one could "participate in the connected world" before Facebook fully launched in September 2006.

Next you are invited to an important meeting at a club, you must attend if you want to grow/achieve with your life.
Disputed that there exist no other ways "to grow/achieve with your life."
Better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 07:22 · Score: 0

STOP letting your 12-year-olds post things on the internet!
I mean really, both for our sake and theirs. They're annoying, they're notorious "shitposters", but more importantly the internet today is a goddam jungle. EVERYTHING is hunting something else, even if it's rarely in the 'Chris Hansen' sense.
Maybe I should put an example here? Ok, open your browser add-ons page and look though the list. How many anti-crapware anti-spying related things do you have installed? How many times have you just hovered your cursor over some shady .ru or .nl link and thought yeah no fuck that? There's probably 50 other examples that are relevant on a daily basis.
How do you explain all this technical stuff to someone who barely understands basic social interaction at that point?
If you're 12, you should primarily be in Lurk Mode. Preferably learn some basic things about computer maintenance so you can fix it when you inevitably break it.
And the registration process for things that are targeted at adults or older kids should really include some kind of high school level math problem as a captcha. Yeah, it'll block some of the adults as well, but honestly I don't see a problem there. If you can't solve it, or at least ask google how to solve it, you probably weren't going to be posting anything more valuable than a spambot.
Clarification... by thomn8r · 2017-01-09 07:55 · Score: 1

He didn't re-write the privacy policy, he translated it into something humans can read.
Re: Prove to me there is no other way to grow/achi by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 08:14 · Score: 0

In due time there won't be. Facebook is everywhere. Zuckerberg has won. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool.
Translation: by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 08:51 · Score: 0

Translation: Don't have any connection with Facebook or Instagram.
Null&Void by sdinfoserv · 2017-01-09 08:54 · Score: 1

UK lawyer? So what!
In the US, any contract with a minor is NULL AND VOID. Therefore, minors can not legally accept the "accept clauses" on use license, which is a contract. It is neither enforceable or binding. I submit it is ILLEGAL for corporations like FaceBook to profiteer off minors when said minors can not legally consent to post sell ANY of their data.
In short by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 10:39 · Score: 0

Even shorter: "We will fuck you in any way possible and your parents won't be able to help you"
7 laws of the interwebs by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 11:57 · Score: 0

This is pretty much how I view all websites regardless of what the terms say. I really wish sites would just come out and say this and not hide behind pages of lawyer-ese.
1. Just by being here we have recorded info about you and will attempt to use the data and info we have gathered.
2. If you or someone else enters your info, we will keep it and link it to your account.
3. We will extract and link info from your posts, pictures, locations, telemetry(usage) and any other data to your account.
4. If we find and/or become aware of any other info about you we will link it to your account.
5. We will use the info linked to your account however we want.
6. You will not be paid for any account info or content you post unless explicitly specified.
7. We will profit off of your posts and info however we want.
Simpler summary by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 12:34 · Score: 0

Anything you post to a social networking site is public.
It doesn't matter what privacy settings you think you have configured.
Anyone can read them. Anyone can copy them. Anyone can repost them or use them any way they choose.
Any questions?
ToS;DR by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-09 15:13 · Score: 0

Have a look at ToS;DR which aims to do this.
it will not always be obvious that it is an adver by jaminJay · 2017-01-09 16:37 · Score: 1

[I]t will not always be obvious that it is an advert
Super-illegal over here...

--
Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."
Let me fix that by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 01:23 · Score: 0

Lawyer rewrites TOS so that the rest of us can ****ing understand too.
FTFY
I think the important point to make is ... by MondoGordo · 2017-01-10 11:49 · Score: 1

Now that we understand what the policy actually says.... WTF would anyone sign up for Instagram ?
Re: it will not always be obvious that it is an ad by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-10 15:21 · Score: 0

Super-illegal over here...
Walk forward two meters.
Take three and a half steps left.
There, not illegal any more.