10 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
10 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Potential COPPA changes - plug-in and 3rd party service providers should read this

by Paul Myers
8 replies
The FTC is looking at some potential changes to COPPA, which could affect any site that doesn't screen by age and isn't clearly directed to an adult audience.

How changes to a kids’ privacy law could chill innovation for everyone | Ars Technica

Anyone who develops software or services which interact with someone else's sites (which the Commission refers to as 'plug-ins') should read that. Same for people who use third party services that collect any data at all. Even if it's just an anonymous IP address...

Note: Please keep comments restricted to the implications of this specific proposal. Rants about government interventionism and "the nanny-state" will, no matter how accurate they may or may not be, end up being deleted.


Paul
#3rd #coppa #party #plugin #potential #providers #read #service
  • Profile picture of the author Martin Luxton
    Paul,

    Not a anti-nanny state rant but an observation that this seems to be a proposal from somebody who has no idea how the internet/the real world functions.

    And the definitions are so vague . . .

    On the other hand, the Facebook situation re COPPA is laughable - the anecdotal evidence I have suggests there are a substantial number of children under 13 on the site.


    Martin

    P.S. It just struck me that there could be a whole load of Wordpress developers hauled up in front of the FTC.

    "Are you denying that this is a Child theme?"

    "No, it is a Child theme, but . . . "

    "So, you admit you are breaking the law!!!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7024370].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Martin Avis
      Originally Posted by Martin Luxton View Post

      ... an observation that this seems to be a proposal from somebody who has no idea how the internet/the real world functions.
      As good a definition of 'politician' as any!

      Martin
      Signature
      Martin Avis publishes Kickstart Newsletter - Subscribe free at http://kickstartnewsletter.com
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7024554].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tpw
    This paragraph is the one that caught my attention:

    In fact, COPPA is the only protect-the-children-from-the-Internet law passed in the late ‘90s that hasn’t been challenged in court. The Communications Decency Act (1996), the Child Pornography Prevention Act (1996), and the Child Online Protection Act (1998) each went to the Supreme Court and were all struck down due to First Amendment concerns about restricting access to information online

    It makes me wonder why COPPA has not been challenged in court, and who typically challenges these things.

    Then I was struck with how anyone would have any kind of argument against the Child Pornography Prevention Act (1996).
    Signature
    Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
    Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7024443].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Martin,
      Not a anti-nanny state rant but an observation that this seems to be a proposal from somebody who has no idea how the internet/the real world functions.
      Government proposals usually are, at least where the Internet is involved. Fortunately, the Commission listens. When they heard comments on their broad and poorly defined proposal for advertiser-based suppression lists, they made significant changes after hearing from a lot of people who run email publications and lists.

      They tend to be much more sane and responsive to rational feedback than most bureaucracies.

      Bill,
      It makes me wonder why COPPA has not been challenged in court, and who typically challenges these things.
      COPPA is currently a pretty carefully crafted and narrowly focused combo of legislation/regulation. Most sites don't fit the criteria of being intended to attract children under 13, so a simple COPPA policy statement with an address to request removal of data is sufficient.

      This site, for example, is likely to be of very little interest to most 12-year olds, and we require that members be 18 or older. In the rare case where a 12-year old might wander in, we'd remove all data on them as soon as we became aware of it. We did, the one time I'm aware of there being someone here under 13.


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7024609].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Brandon Tanner
        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        In the rare case where a 12-year old might wander in, we'd remove all data on them as soon as we became aware of it. We did, the one time I'm aware of there being someone here under 13.
        Someone already interested in marketing at 12 years old? I'd say that's a millionaire in the making right there!
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7025212].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
          Brandon,
          Someone already interested in marketing at 12 years old? I'd say that's a millionaire in the making right there!
          No doubt.

          The age limit rules are among my least favorite things to have to enforce. I absolutely HATE having to ban people for being 17 and ambitious. Especially since the younger members tend, as a group, to comport themselves in a more rational and adult fashion than many of the "older" members.

          Legal stuff. Has to be done. The only comfort in it is that it's not a judgement call. It's a very clear, bright line: "If you are, or claim to be, under 18."

          Still sucks, though.


          Paul
          Signature
          .
          Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7025365].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      Originally Posted by tpw View Post

      Then I was struck with how anyone would have any kind of argument against the Child Pornography Prevention Act (1996).
      If memory serves, the argument wasn't about preventing child porn but about defining it.

      Is the TV show "Toddlers & Tiaras" kiddie porn? Some would say so.

      How about the 'bathtub' photos just about every parent has? Would posting those to a blog or photo site be considered child porn because some perv might get turned on?

      Or how about photos in newspaper or magazine inserts selling children's underwear? Is the photo of a cute kid in his Underoos porn?

      It wasn't about the concept or the core, it was about the edges...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7025232].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        John,

        The perennial problem of specificity:
        the argument wasn't about [some goal] but about defining it.
        Great example: The OT section here has a posted rule prohibiting discussions of politics and religion. That applies throughout the board, but OT needed the "In your face" reminder.

        Someone started a thread about reincarnation recently. It was reported a couple of times. Once as being "religious." That's not precisely correct, but it's not an unreasonable perspective to raise to the mods. Another person reported it as "Satanism." (Form your own conclusions on that one.)

        This demand for specificity in definition is, as you can see, not without sound basis. There is a long history online of people playing at the edges of things to try and get their own perspective adopted as "official doctrine," or at least as working policy.

        It's an old battle. Ain't going away any time soon.


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7025457].message }}

Trending Topics