Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
FTC To Enforce COPPA?

By Velian in News
Fri Apr 21, 2000 at 10:44:22 PM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

According to an article on Newsbytes, the Federal Trade Commission is ready to enforce the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), passed in 1998, which requires websites to gain parental consent prior to collecting identifiable data from children under 13. The FTC suggests that websites use "print-and-send via postal mail or facsimile, use of a credit card or toll-free telephone number, digital signature, or e-mail accompanied by a PIN or password." Violators could be subject to an $11,000 penalty per child, per act.


There are already several sites, such as this one, that follow this rule.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o article on Newsbytes
o Federal Trade Commission
o COPPA
o such as this one
o Also by Velian


Display: Sort:
FTC To Enforce COPPA? | 31 comments (31 topical, editorial, 3 hidden)
The children, the children, we gott... (3.00 / 2) (#3)
by Commienst on Fri Apr 21, 2000 at 07:18:06 PM EST

Commienst voted 1 on this story.

The children, the children, we gotta think about the children. The children are our future ...

Fuck the children.
George Carlin


is it some sort of triangle? (1.25 / 4) (#20)
by Velian on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 10:40:59 PM EST

is it some sort of triangle?

[ Parent ]
is it some sort of triangle?is it some sort of tri (1.14 / 7) (#21)
by Velian on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 10:41:28 PM EST

is it some sort of triangle?is it some sort of triangle?

[ Parent ]
debbie and ian? (1.14 / 7) (#22)
by Velian on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 10:41:53 PM EST

debbie and ian?

[ Parent ]
this is somewhat interesting.. (1.33 / 6) (#23)
by Velian on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 10:42:21 PM EST

this is somewhat interesting..

[ Parent ]
these were actually pretty good (1.14 / 7) (#24)
by Velian on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 10:42:51 PM EST

these were actually pretty good

[ Parent ]
ha ha (1.14 / 7) (#25)
by Velian on Wed Jul 11, 2001 at 10:43:29 PM EST

ha ha

[ Parent ]
The statute and rule apply to comme... (3.00 / 1) (#1)
by rusty on Fri Apr 21, 2000 at 07:36:00 PM EST

rusty voted 1 on this story.

The statute and rule apply to commercial Web sites and online services directed to, or that knowingly collect information from, children under 13.

What I read about this makes it sound hopelessly unclear. For example, when I take a working email address to create an account, is that "private information?" And am I supposed to find out if you're over 13 before I get your email address? Or is this only sites "targeted at children?" Well, for the record, this site it not targeted at children, and if you're under 13, the Government of the United States says please stop reading now. ;-)

____
Not the real rusty

Re: The statute and rule apply to comme... (3.00 / 1) (#4)
by Velian on Fri Apr 21, 2000 at 10:53:04 PM EST

I admit that I didn't read the full documents on the rule, but it seems to me that it's just illegal for you to accept information from children under 13 that could reveal their identity before getting parental permission first. In my opinion, this information could be defined as: last name, attended school, address, phone number, e-mail address (iffy), or maybe even IP...?

If IP is one of them, then IRC wouldn't count and such things. I think it mainly applies to forms and such.

Personally, I think this whole idea is wrong. It's a form of censorship. I don't care if the Internet is 100% stalkers, killers, rapists, and evil people. This is wrong. I am all for getting rid of these kinds of people and protecting <13 year olds, but I know that this will lead to more censorship acts and they'll just get more serious, invasive and wrong each time.

It's up to the parents to regulate their children. It'd be better to fine parents $11k for not monitoring their children than to fine skinz.org (just anoher site that is following this, now) $11k for doing someone else's job.

[ Parent ]

Re: The statute and rule apply to comme... (none / 0) (#6)
by Commienst on Fri Apr 21, 2000 at 11:57:47 PM EST

I always knew they (the government) were gonna screw up the internet. They created it and now they are slowly censoring and litagating it to death.

[ Parent ]
Re: The statute and rule apply to comme... (1.66 / 3) (#7)
by Velian on Sat Apr 22, 2000 at 01:11:45 AM EST

Yeah. I think we all know it's going to happen, but it sure would be nice to be able to do something about it.

But we all know it's just a matter of when, and we should do everything we can to fight this kind of thing.

[ Parent ]

Good! Web sites shouldn't be doing ... (2.50 / 2) (#2)
by xah on Fri Apr 21, 2000 at 07:51:20 PM EST

xah voted 1 on this story.

Good! Web sites shouldn't be doing this anyway. BTW, are there any under-13 Kuro5hin readers?

Re: FTC To Enforce COPPA? (3.00 / 1) (#5)
by Demona on Fri Apr 21, 2000 at 11:30:46 PM EST

A lot of sites that tend to have both juvenile and adult visitors are starting to worry about their liability for previously "innocent" activity. The Journal of the International Association of Xena Studies' latest issue has a very good walkthrough of COPPA that points out some of the potential pitfalls that await.

-dj

independent contractor to Callisto's army

Let the Strong Survive (4.00 / 1) (#8)
by Commienst on Sat Apr 22, 2000 at 02:13:37 PM EST

We need to stop holding letting kids hands. It is ridiculous how freaked out people get over the issue of kids and toys with small parts. I say if a kid is dumb enough to put a part of a toy is their mouth and try to swallow it and chokes and dies, let it happen. Do we really want children that dumb growing up and then procreating? It may sound cold but I sure do not.

If a kid is foolish enough to give his personal information to a potential pedophile online I say let it happen. The child will sure learn to smarten up quick that way.

Re: Let the Strong Survive (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by rusty on Sat Apr 22, 2000 at 02:53:07 PM EST

Man, that is pretty cold. Kids, I don't care how smart they are, are simply not equipped to protect themselves like adults in our world. Basically, what you're advocating is the crocodile theory of parental guidance-- If they can't hack it, screw 'em! That's not the way mammals work, frankly.

Now I do believe that this sort of thing is the job of the parents, not the web site operators. However there probably ought to be some regulations on what you can do with underage children's information. Hell, from an ethical standpoint, there ought to be strict limits on what you can do with *anyone's* personal information. What worries me is that COPPA seems dreadfully unclear, even if it is motivated by good intentions. It seems, reading it, that it is targeted specifically toward sites that explicitly solicit information from children. I.e. I don't think they're going to go after sites like K5, but if I were running the "Barney Fun Page" and asking kids for their addresses, I'd probably come under close scrutiny. As with all laws and regulations, how it is enforced is the key to success or failure.

And I really do suggest you think about your child-rearing philosophy before you consider having kids yourself. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Re: Let the Strong Survive (2.00 / 1) (#10)
by Commienst on Sat Apr 22, 2000 at 03:02:25 PM EST

I think you should help and protect them. But not from inanimate objects like plastic bags, small parts, etc.

Parents seem to be good at reminding their kids not to approach strangers. Lord knows how many times my mom told me, I figure they should know not to give out the address and other such information.

[ Parent ]

Re: Let the Strong Survive (none / 0) (#11)
by rusty on Sat Apr 22, 2000 at 03:34:42 PM EST

Exactly! And parents *do* need to keep kids from choking on plastic bags and small parts, because kids inherently put everything in their mouths, at a certain age. But, just like this, and not talking to strangers, and not giving your address to websites, I believe that this is primarily the job of the *parents*, not the federal government. That's what people forget in the rush to legislate everyhting having to do with kids.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Re: Let the Strong Survive (none / 0) (#12)
by Commienst on Sat Apr 22, 2000 at 04:06:47 PM EST

Well parents do not want to have to do that stuff. They want to do as little parenting as possible. You should have to pass a test to be able to have children.

Any couple with a fully functioning penis and vagina can go out and have kids. To adopt they actually check under scrutiny to see if you would be fit parents.

[ Parent ]

Re: Let the Strong Survive (none / 0) (#13)
by rusty on Sat Apr 22, 2000 at 04:14:28 PM EST

However, if you start regulating reproductive rights, you get into whole creepy Eugenic areas. Basically, the whole issue is a big tar-pit, and we have to try to do the best we can with the tiny brains we've got...

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Whats Worse> (none / 0) (#14)
by Commienst on Sat Apr 22, 2000 at 04:28:35 PM EST

Whats worse?
Eugenics or letting anyone have kids. Even the drug dealers, prostitutes, pedophiles...

[ Parent ]
Re: Let the Strong Survive (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Inoshiro on Sat Apr 22, 2000 at 06:55:15 PM EST

I've never understood why people shied away from Eugenics in such a fashion. True, it has been used for evil, but so have the principles of physics (nuclear weapons), but it has given use benefits.

I would like to see regulation of child production. Not just to make sure that more crack babies aren't produced, but to make sure our population doesn't grow out of control. I was thinking that the eligibility for having a child would be based on the intelligence, past history or any crimes, and from interviews between the parents and a non-biased third party (perhaps a marriage counselor). Things like sexual preference and race would not be considered. If the people were compatible (ie: wouldn't end up fighting to the point where the child could be hurt), had a good history (wouldn't be raising another racist child, etc, morals wise), and didn't have a history of illicit substances which could affect the child, then they're welcome to have one (or two, no more)..

30-40 years after something like this was started, everyone would take it for granted (like we do the TV and phone). Chances are, any abuses of such a service would be shaken out in the first 10 years or so. Our society would be healthy, probably less crime, more intelligence on average (we can hope), and with the same wonderful mix of skin colours, eye colours, hair colours, and sexual preferences/identities that we see today. The problem is that not everyone is as pragmatic as I am. :-(

--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]

Re: Let the Strong Survive (none / 0) (#18)
by Commienst on Sat Apr 22, 2000 at 09:03:45 PM EST

"Things like sexual preference ... would not be considered."

Your not eluding to the fact that you think gay or lesbian couples should be able to have/adopt children? If you are it is a bad idea. A child needs a mother and a father, not two fathers or two mothers.

[ Parent ]

Re: Let the Strong Survive (none / 0) (#19)
by Inoshiro on Mon Apr 24, 2000 at 07:40:49 AM EST

That's a rather conservative view. Have you ever looked into single families? How is a single father who looks after children, and has a friend over often any different from two men who are a couple? Or two women? I don't know if you remember childhood, but I didn't think about sex until I was at least 13.

The only people who discriminate based on sexual orientation are the same people who have been exposed to discrimination from their own parents (same for skin colour discrimination and gender discrimination). If you think of it that way, such children would be more open minded and tollerant. A definite plus.



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
Re: Let the Strong Survive (4.00 / 1) (#15)
by Inoshiro on Sat Apr 22, 2000 at 06:46:36 PM EST

Between the ages of 0 and 3, children develop their sentience. At age 0 and 1, they can't generally look after themselves or think clearly. This is when things like small parts, bags, etc, should be kept away from them by intelligent parents. Once they start to ape the language and move on their own, they've taken the first steps towards being self-sufficient. But they still need looking after.

Between 4 and 13, children are sentient enough to do most things in life. I know I could handle a lot of things that the more chronicly stupid people twice the age couldn't handle. It's the parents' responsibility to educate the child. If they don't motivate them about learning, or tell them about various non-obvious dangers (giving out personal information), it affects the child directly.

However, you make the assumption that most parents knows what they're doing. They don't. This legislation is a legal band-aid from the US gov't. It does not address the real issue -- people who shouldn't be having children are, and are doing so more and more often. And when do they have children, they raise them improperly and cause a greater burden on society. A burden that experesses itself as annoying legislation that makes me have to be thrice as careful about what goes on my website.



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
I notice you haven't had kids yourself. (none / 0) (#32)
by mcherm on Mon Jul 23, 2001 at 09:21:14 AM EST

I say if a kid is dumb enough to put a part of a toy is their mouth and try to swallow it and chokes and dies, let it happen. Do we really want children that dumb growing up and then procreating?

Everyone, please raise your hand if you've ever raised a human child who did go through a stage where they tried to put practically everything in their mouth.

What, no hands?

Okay, no raise your hands all parents who truely wish that their kid would just up and DIE if they're not smart enough (or lucky enough) to pass someone's test of "worthwhile to the human species".

Hey you four, with your hands up... yeah, you! You are completely unequiped to be parents! Now go home, and pray hard that your kids' teacher/minister/grandparent/neighbor can find a way to show them the unconditional love that children need and you seem unequipped to provide.

-- Michael Chermside
[ Parent ]

FTC To Enforce COPPA? | 31 comments (31 topical, 0 editorial, 3 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!