Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday July 21 2019, @05:07PM   Printer-friendly
from the not-that-COPPA-cobana dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is considering an update to the laws governing children's privacy online, known as the COPPA Rule (or, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act). The rule first went into effect in 2000 and was amended in 2013 to address changes in how children use mobile devices and social networking sites. Now the FTC believes it may be due for more revisions. The organization is seeking input and comments on possible updates, some of which are specifically focused on how to address sites that aren't necessarily aimed at children, but have large numbers of child users.

In other words, sites like YouTube.

The FTC's announcement comes only weeks after U.S. consumer advocacy groups and Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) sent complaint letters to the FTC, urging the regulators to investigate YouTube for potential COPPA violations.

The advocacy groups allege that YouTube is hiding behind its terms of service, which claim YouTube is "not intended for children under 13" — a statement that's clearly no longer true. Today, the platform is filled with videos designed for viewing by kids.

[...] "In light of rapid technological changes that impact the online children's marketplace, we must ensure COPPA remains effective," said FTC Chairman Joe Simons, in a published statement. "We're committed to strong COPPA enforcement, as well as industry outreach and a COPPA business hotline to foster a high level of COPPA compliance. But we also need to regularly revisit and, if warranted, update the Rule," he added.

[...] The FTC says it will hold a public workshop on October 7, 2019 to examine the COPPA Rule.

Source: https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/18/the-ftc-looks-to-change-childrens-privacy-law-following-complaints-about-youtube/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 21 2019, @05:55PM (15 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 21 2019, @05:55PM (#869681) Journal

    They've got a problem. They think they've identified the problem. And, they have identified the problem, in part. Sneaky SOB's are spying on children, yes. But, the rest of the problem? Dumbasses don't even realize there is a remaining problem. Sneaky SOB's are spying on ALL OF US - young, old, male, female, whatever color, nationality, ethnic origin, education level.

    Just formulate a law that puts sneaky spying away for good. No more internet tracking, no more databases, no more targeted advertising, at all, for anyone. Problem solved. Anything and everything that requires persistence, such as a log-in cookie, is OPT-IN, with prominent notification and warning.

    It's amazing how much I can do on the internet, and not accept cookies. There are very few cookies that I accept. Which reminds me - I'm due to munch some of them. No one needs that data, unless I need that data, and I don't need it anymore.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Flamebait=1, Insightful=3, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Sunday July 21 2019, @06:35PM (10 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday July 21 2019, @06:35PM (#869696) Journal

    No more internet tracking, no more databases, no more targeted advertising, at all, for anyone. Problem solved.

    No, problem not solved. Unless you are sniffing out all their networks and searching all the hidden cellars, you will never know what they are collecting. The only thing we can do is try to prevent what they collect from being used against us. Demand something like a sovereign immunity. And maybe don't allow copyright protection for data collected. It automatically becomes public domain. Take away the incentive to collect in the first place.

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 21 2019, @06:45PM (9 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 21 2019, @06:45PM (#869700) Journal

      At least we are both at the same end of the telescope. Yes, I agree, take away the incentive, and they'll stop collecting the data. But, you can still pass a law that dis-incentivizes the collection. Unless you or I have a direct business relationship with a company, possession of any of our data by that company should be against the law - period. The merest scrap of identifiable data about me, in the possession of an advertising agency with which I have no direct business relationship should be illegal, and they should be liable for damages and punitive fines for having it. And, let us remember that "anonymized" data can often times be easily de-anonymized. That crap counts as illegal. As for the kids - if the protections of adults is strong enough, the kids shouldn't really need much more than the adults. Oh-kay, maybe porn sites need some stronger methods of identification, but it need not be crazy, either.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday July 22 2019, @01:07AM (3 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 22 2019, @01:07AM (#869786) Journal

        Yes, I agree, take away the incentive, and they'll stop collecting the data.

        Since you are the product and the merchandise is the data about your life (as intimate as possible), you can safely bet that it... will.. NEVER... happen. 'cause stopping the data collection will mean the death of Google and Facebook businesses.
        Are you such an old naive fool to think they don't have enough money to buy the Congress wholesale when their very existence depends on it?

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @05:24AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @05:24AM (#869843)

          Isn't it nice to have such a simplistic view of politics! We don't have to do anything because it is all hopeless, and as an added bonus by not solving problems we get to enjoy whinging about them forever.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday July 22 2019, @05:47AM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 22 2019, @05:47AM (#869846) Journal

            Isn't it nice to have such a simplistic view of politics! We don't have to do anything because it is all hopeless

            Huh? Pointing that the fight is uphill and you are likely to be crushed means that I want to discourage you from trying? Far from my mind! By all means, be my guest, go ahead (grin)

            You'll excuse me though for not joining, neither in fighting nor in whinging. You see? I solved my problem already: no facebook for me. With a bit of effort, I can drop google too. Granted, not living in US helps in regards with the impact of US politics.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @11:04AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @11:04AM (#869891)

          will mean the death of Google and Facebook businesses.

          You say that like it's a bad thing.

      • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Monday July 22 2019, @01:16PM (4 children)

        by Pino P (4721) on Monday July 22 2019, @01:16PM (#869920) Journal

        Unless you or I have a direct business relationship with a company, possession of any of our data by that company should be against the law - period.

        Let's say you buy something from a web store to be shipped to your home. Are you entering into "a direct business relationship" with the shipping courier? With the shipping address validation and fraud risk assessment services that the store uses? With the store's acquiring bank, which processes your method of payment? These service providers all have a legitimate interest in processing the name and address of users who shop at any web store. Would shoppers need to somehow enter into "a direct business relationship" with each entity that process user data? If so, how would this be accomplished?

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 22 2019, @01:55PM (3 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 22 2019, @01:55PM (#869943) Journal

          Nope - no direct business relationship with any of those. Legitimate interests? Let them request, then PAY ME for the data they need. Fraud risk assessment? Phht. Shipper waits for the payment to clear, then ships. Short answer, far too many people are involved in shipping an item that I order online. I have a direct business arrangement with PayPal. PayPal needs at least some of the data they have collected on me. The only data they need share with a shipper, is the mailing address.

          • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday July 23 2019, @01:13PM (2 children)

            by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday July 23 2019, @01:13PM (#870307) Journal

            Legitimate interests? Let them request, then PAY ME for the data they need.

            Then the seller has your mailing address but cannot share your mailing address with the courier to ship the goods to you because you have no "direct business relationship" with the courier. How is it practical to require every seller to pay every buyer in order to share the mailing address with the courier? Or would it be a better idea to instead require each buyer to register yet another email and password with UPS, FedEx, USPS, and whatever other couriers that websites use, so that the buyer has a "direct business relationship" with the courier as well?

            Fraud risk assessment? Phht. Shipper waits for the payment to clear, then ships.

            Enjoy waiting six months for anything to ship because six months is how long it takes for an electronic payment to truly clear. I worked for an online toy store for several years, and sometimes we'd get international orders, ship out product, and not learn that the card was stolen until a month or two later when the rightful owner of that card issued a chargeback. Is next-day handling time instead of 180-day handling time enough of a "payment" for the use of this data? Or what other method would you recommend to avoid shipping goods to a fraudulent user of payment credentials?

            I have a direct business arrangement with PayPal.

            Which works fine as long as the seller takes PayPal. PayPal forbids use by sellers of some product categories. Martin Korth of Nocash Funware, for example, lost the ability to accept PayPal payments over selling certain kinds of software debugging tools.

            The only data they need share with a shipper, is the mailing address.

            Under the strict "direct business relationship" paradigm that you describe, the seller would not be permitted to share even that without paying you. This is why, say, Europe's GDPR has a "legitimate interest" exception.

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday July 23 2019, @02:04PM (1 child)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 23 2019, @02:04PM (#870323) Journal

              Oh, come on - I, the shipper, put an address label on a package, and drop it in the mail, or call UPS, or Fedex. I, the shipper, have a contract to send this item across the county, the state, or the nation. I "share" the absolute minimum information for the subcontractor to deliver the item. I don't share financial status, marital status, age, gender, race or ethnicity, medical problems, or any other data I may have accumulated in regards to the recipient. The customer actually expects me to share that bare minimum of data - that is, the delivery address - and nothing more than that bare minimum. What's more, if the customer is smart, he expects me to delete any extraneous data regarding him, which is not required by law to be saved for some period of time.

              Six months wait on financial transactions? Uhhhh - you write off those losses, just like brick-and-mortar stores wrote off shoplifting etc all those years ago. Six months is ridiculous. The economy will find a way to work around those petty theft losses.

              OK, you don't take PayPal. Someone who offers the items I want to purchase will take PayPal. You may choose to use some other form of payment, and I may choose to shop elsewhere. I see no problem here. If, next year, I decide to drop PayPal, and use some other form of online payment, then I will shop at sites online that take that other form of payment. Again, I see no problem here. SOMEONE is catering to all of the people using whichever form of payment you prefer to use. That seems to be one of the basic tenets of a free market. We're not all required to use the same means of money transfer, are we?

              • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Saturday August 03 2019, @03:13AM

                by Pino P (4721) on Saturday August 03 2019, @03:13AM (#874962) Journal

                I "share" the absolute minimum information for the subcontractor to deliver the item. I don't share financial status, marital status, age, gender, race or ethnicity

                As a seller, you share the buyer's given and family name with the courier. These are correlated with gender, birth year (via Social Security naming trends data), and "race or ethnicity." You also share financial status based on the assessed value of the property to which the parcel will be delivered.

                Besides, earlier, from the perspective of a buyer, you wrote: "Legitimate interests? Let them request, then PAY ME for the data they need." Now from the perspective of a seller, how reasonable do you think it would be for a buyer to demand that you pay the buyer to be allowed to collect even "the absolute minimum information for the subcontractor to deliver the item" and share it with the courier?

                he expects me to delete any extraneous data regarding him, which is not required by law to be saved for some period of time.

                I would guess that it would be wise for a seller to save enough information to identify a buyer for the duration of the product's warranty. Otherwise, when a buyer returns a product under warranty to the seller after having asked the seller to delete the seller's copy of the receipt, how does the seller verify that the warranty is valid?

                Someone who offers the items I want to purchase will take PayPal.

                That works if 1. you are buying goods, not services to be performed by the seller; 2. you aren't buying access to (say) downloadable apps or games for a mobile or console platform whose store doesn't take PayPal (Apple and Google do; Amazon appears not to); and 3. you're willing to pay maybe 50% markup from a gray market reseller instead of buying directly from the manufacturer solely because the reseller takes PayPal and the manufacturer doesn't. One example of case 3 is Amazon brand products, such as Kindle readers, Fire tablets, and Fire TV streaming adapters.

                SOMEONE is catering to all of the people using whichever form of payment you prefer to use.

                Even sellers in categories that the operator of your preferred form of payment categorically excludes, such as debugging tools for developers of software for classic video game consoles?

                That seems to be one of the basic tenets of a free market.

                Correct. In a free market, a particular payment processor is free to refuse service to sellers who offer particular categories of goods or services. This means no sellers of goods or services in that category will offer that form of payment.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday July 21 2019, @09:20PM (3 children)

    by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Sunday July 21 2019, @09:20PM (#869724)

    If you're worried about your child's privacy online take away their devices until you have time to supervise what they do online.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 21 2019, @09:33PM (1 child)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 21 2019, @09:33PM (#869728) Journal

      I agree, pretty much. But, we both know that few parents are willing to engage in that battle. Worse, the parent might be taken to court for child abuse if he/she takes away the kid's internet.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday July 22 2019, @01:10AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 22 2019, @01:10AM (#869787) Journal

        Worse, the parent might be taken to court for child abuse if he/she takes away the kid's internet.

        Except YouTube and Facebook are not** the internet.

        ** PornHub is. And it's already taken from kids (large grin)

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @03:32AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @03:32AM (#869819)

      When did you stop watching pornhub with your son?