Should Parents Shun Toys That Track Their Kids? (cbsnews.com)

An anonymous reader quotes CBS News: Parents are realizing that it's not just Santa who's keeping tabs on their kids. Many popular high-tech gadgets that may end up being given as holiday presents can actually track, monitor and record children. Because of that, there are some gifts Felicity and Alden Eute won't have under their Christmas tree. Their mother, Emily, has banned all tech gifts this season. "My husband and I both agree kids don't really need to be on technology or on social media," Emily said. "None of these extra gadgets that just expose you to things kids shouldn't be exposed to at their age."

While federal law requires a parent's permission to track and collect data on children under 13, a Federal Trade Commission complaint filed this week alleges widespread violations through apps that "send persistent identifiers to third parties without giving direct notice to parents." That means things like location data, phone numbers and contact information could be exposed, according to Serge Engleman of the International Computer Science Institute. The institute's surveillance system, under the direction of Engleman, collected evidence that is now before the Federal Trade Commission.... It's not only apps where there are potential violations. "Any kind of interconnected robot-type toys...interactive games that you may play online are collecting data," said Scott Pink, a privacy and cybersecurity specialist.

Comments

Re:I even read TFA

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

I mean, fear mongering is fine. But seriously could you not find even ONE example of the abuse of privacy for a kids tech toy?

That's the problem with big data: the threat is so massive and so diffuse that it's both very hard to find clear-cut evidence for it, and it's often too big to believe.

With "localized" dangers, it's simple: for example the pervert neighbor watching your child with a pair of binoculars. Easy problem to identify. Catch the perv in the act, problem solved.

With surveillance IoT toys, it's a lot harder to identify the problem. The toy maker could be building a database on your child's habits and behaviors in good faith. But what tells you they won't sell it to Facebook who'll get to "open a file" on your kid early? If the toymaker's database gets stolen and sold on the dark net, pervs can buy it and use it. And gee, do you want even a benevolent company virtually living with your child?

The problem is, there hasn't been a clear-cut crime committed. If there was, you can't tell because database owners are totally opaque and unaccountable. How do you do about proving something illegal is, or will be going on?

You only get to see the effects of corporate surveillance in the news when it goes spectacularly wrong. But in reality, it goes on all the time and there's nothing you or the law can do about it.

Re:I even read TFA

[wierd_w]

Agreed, which is why the consumer is the one on the line, as the one and only line of defense.

If the device communicates with a mothership, you should not use, nor buy it.

I would go on a limb, and say 90% (or more) of the use cases for IoT devices, DO NOT actually require a mothership; The user's home computer, with a local app, with local map data, would be MORE than sufficient to handle whatever "connected" services the satellite device offers. (Fitness trackers, etc.)

The reason the use a mothership for the communication is because a big corporation finds that data use^^ I mean PROFITABLE.

Remember when people were horrified at the idea of giving corporations personal information? I do. I want those days back.

Toys?

[aglider]

If it's your kid to play with it, then it's a "toy".
If it's it can play with your kids (and your family), then it's not.

A computer (or a smatphone) disguised as a toy with full networking ISN'T A TOY!
It's a computer on the internet with microphones, cameras, GPS, wifi ... you name it.

Go buy dolls, Lego bricks, books (from dead trees), card games and the likes.
Your kids won't feel "different from the others".
It's you that who thinks you kids could feel different.
They are kids, they need real friends, runs and scraped knees.

Re:I even read TFA

[wierd_w]

Before I answer this question, I will ask you a rhetorical one of my own:

Which is more valuable to society-- Shareholder value, or social stability and cohesion?

From a "Shareholder value trumps all things!" viewpoint, there is NOTHING that should stand between an insurer, and having the absolute most accurate and up to the millisecond data about those they insure, allowing them to rescind a policy the very nanosecond that the insured violates the terms of their insurance agreement, (but continues to pay in up until that very nanosecond).

From a "Social stability and cohesion is more important that some rich fuck's pocket book" perspective, the ability of an insurer to make such decisions, with such perfect knowledge, is NOT in the public interest, because it means many many people who believed in true earnestness that they have purchased assurance of coverage for healthcare/damage/loss, will in fact-- NOT have that assurance, and will thus NOT be prepared, and this will cause a significant burden to the society.

So, which position do you personally feel is more important? It will greatly affect how I should answer your question.

Re:Depends on your values.

[JaredOfEuropa]

Trust me, the "targeted" ads are not a whole lot better.

I'm not against such information being collected per se, if it benefits me directly. That most certainly doesn't include better ads, but things like better suggestions from Netflix and Siri or Alexa understanding me and perhaps anticipating some of my habits. That's all fine. What I do have issues with:
- How that information is being used for other purposes (ads)
- To whom that information is being sold
- How well that information is protected
- What laws are in place to safeguard against misuse, and what penalties apply

The problem with many companies who are after my data is not that they collect the data, or that they might be tempted to misuse it. If they say they collect the data for benign purpose X, and the law says they can't use it for anything else or the CEO ends up in prison, then I am willing to extend some trust towards their good intentions. But there are no such laws and no such promises, and for most companies, abusing my data is the core of their business model.

Re:I even read TFA

[Harlequin80]

Your comment is also focused on those behaviours that you can control. Imagine instead the situation where you had an erratic heartbeat event while you were 4. That even was detected by your fitness device and as a result, at the age of 21, no insurer will give you life insurance or your life insurance has exclusions for any heart conditions or is prohibitively expensive. This is despite never having any other issues, never being diagnosed with any heart conditions and despite being otherwise healthy in every way,

Re:I even read TFA

[JaredOfEuropa]

So you think you ought to get a discount on your health insurance for healthy living. Do you also think it is fair that you pay way more premium for your pension (if you have a collective one), and that you pay more tax if your country offers a state pension, because you are much more likely to live to an old age than the candy eating fatass? I think it was the BBC who did a short study into this and came to the conclusion that when you add everything up it's you, not the fatass, who is getting a sweet deal. Of course that depends a lot on how your country manages pensions and health care.

In socialized/universal health care the situation may get even worse if you take people's life styles into account. Since everyone is insured by law without exception, the government may simply decide to curb cost by outlawing unhealthy living. No more smoking, no more fatty foods, no more candy bars. No more drinking either. Oh, and no more jogging for you either since it's murder on your knees and we don't want to have to replace them when you get older.