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

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.

Comments

Irony

[MobyDisk]

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?

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

it's only legal to sell poor children's personal information... rich people are still above the law.

Re:Irony

[bsolar]

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.

Re:Irony

[erapert]

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?

Re:Irony

[TWX]

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.

Re:Irony

[Anubis IV]

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.

Re:Irony

[CaptainDork]

Did you notice it's a she?

Re:Irony

[kelemvor4]

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.

Re: Irony

[TheOuterLinux]

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.

Re:Irony

[sg_oneill]

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.)

Re:Irony

[MobyDisk]

good point

Re:Irony

[MobyDisk]

fair enough

Re:Irony

[Anubis IV]

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.

Re:Irony

[HeckRuler]

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.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Irony

[lgw]

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.

Re:Irony

[bsolar]

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.

Re:Irony

[pr0fessor]

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

Re:Irony

[Bert64]

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.

Re: Irony

[ememisya]

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.

Re:Irony

[pnutjam]

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!

I already simplify it for my kids

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

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

Re:I already simplify it for my kids

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I already simplify it for my kids

[gosand]

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. :)

Re:I already simplify it for my kids

[AthanasiusKircher]

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.

Re:I already simplify it for my kids

[zedaroca]

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.

Re:Headline... Headache

[cayenne8]

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.

Re:Headline... Headache

[Barsteward]

First time i've seen a lawyer called "Jenny" referred to as a "He"

Re:Headline... Headache

[stranger_to_himself]

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..

Re:Headline... Headache

[stranger_to_himself]

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'.

Re:Great...

[CaptainDork]

Maybe he is transgendered and you know that but you didn't tell us because you only think of yourself.

Re:Would like to see more info on "where you go"

[CaptainDork]

I circumvent this by never actually visiting the places I'm located.

I'm a grown up

[unixcorn]

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.

Re:I'm a grown up

[Actually, I do RTFA]

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.

TOS Simplicity...however, ...

[TheOuterLinux]

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....

Anything Facebook is right out if privacy matters

[OmniGeek]

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."

What is this about ''for kids'' ?

[Alain Williams]

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.

Re:What is this about ''for kids'' ?

[Princeofcups]

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?"

Re:What is this about ''for kids'' ?

[Waccoon]

would not understand them if they did

Given that 99% of them roughly translate to "Fuck you", they're pretty easy to understand.

Question

[Actually, I do RTFA]

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

Names of other occupants

[tepples]

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".

Re:Names of other occupants

[Anubis IV]

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

[tepples]

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."

Re:Would like to see more info on "where you go"

[desdinova 216]

but everywhere you go, there you are.

Re:Would like to see more info on "where you go"

[CaptainDork]

Says my damned iPhone.

Re:Headline... Headache

[jm007]

The name refers to the last name.... which used to be Jenner. Confusing, I know.

Clarification...

[thomn8r]

He didn't re-write the privacy policy, he translated it into something humans can read.

Re:Headline... Headache

[Princeofcups]

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.

Null&Void

[sdinfoserv]

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.

Re:Headline... Headache

[Asmodae]

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.

Re:Would like to see more info on "where you go"

[another_twilight]

Not always. And when I do, it isn't always me.

it will not always be obvious that it is an adver

[jaminJay]

[I]t will not always be obvious that it is an advert

Super-illegal over here...

I think the important point to make is ...

[MondoGordo]

Now that we understand what the policy actually says.... WTF would anyone sign up for Instagram ?