4 ms·

COPPA doesn't seem that unreasonable. Protecting children from information disclosure while they're under the age of 13 seems very appropriate to me. Once kids

COPPA doesn't seem that unreasonable. Protecting children from information disclosure while they're under the age of 13 seems very appropriate to me. Once kids are 13, they can begin to disclose at their own discretion, but before that, I can see the case for protecting them.

stickfigure 14y ago
Of course COPPA doesn't seem unreasonable, and that's why it continues to exist. However, it is a lesson in unintended consequences: Rather than protecting children, COPPA has the effect of banning them from the internet. The subsequent effect of teaching children to lie and exploit the system is just icing on the proverbial cake. Laws must not be judged on their intentions, but on their practical consequences. The only difference between the current world and a world without COPPA is that in this world, honest kids are prevented from having the same fun that their lying friends are having.
- jonknee 14y ago
  They aren't banned from the internet. They're banned from disclosing personal information (e.g. social networking) without parental consent, which at their age is probably not a bad thing. Wikipedia, Google and the rest of the internet are all fair game. So is any site that goes through with the parental consent part. Sites that do not tailor to kids typically do not go through the hassle because under-13 also means they aren't going to spend any money.
  - stickfigure 14y ago
    The practical result is that kids are banned from nearly any site that could conceivably discover their age - presumably even by commenting in a forum or on a blog entry. Actually, nix that. The practical result is that kids are taught to lie about their age. Fortunately this skill will come in handy when it's time to get a fake ID and buy booze.
    - deleted_account 14y ago
      No, that's not the practical result. You don't run afoul of COPPA by just knowing someone's age; you get into trouble when you knowingly collect the personal information of children under 13 without their parent's permission. Honestly, I would think this crowd would be more disappointed that "banned from nearly any site" has become synonymous with "unwilling to submit all your personally identifiable information."
      - guard-of-terra 14y ago
        That's a nice distinction but how does it proctect children? You being unwilling to submit personal information also makes you banned from almost all the web, including e-mail services.
        deleted_account 14y ago
        You seriously misunderstand COPPA; it is not designed to protect children. It's designed to protect children's privacy.
        guard-of-terra 14y ago
        Is protecting children's privacy orthogonal or even conflicting with protecting children? Because you make it sound like that. UPD: Let me show you an example: Pretend we're talking about some law and you're arguing it's not designed to protect me, but to protect my body. My first thought: the hell are you going to do with my body? Because, my body is what makes me me. If you protect it but not me perhaps you're going to sell my organs away.
        deleted_account 14y ago
        Great example, let's run with it... By your analogy, COPPA would be the law that prevents people from collecting and selling children's organs. Because kids are gullible and and it's easy to convince them out of a kidney or two. Except replace "organs" with "personally identifiable information companies want in order to market shit to you."

stickfigure 14y ago

Of course COPPA doesn't seem unreasonable, and that's why it continues to exist. However, it is a lesson in unintended consequences: Rather than protecting children, COPPA has the effect of banning them from the internet. The subsequent effect of teaching children to lie and exploit the system is just icing on the proverbial cake. Laws must not be judged on their intentions, but on their practical consequences. The only difference between the current world and a world without COPPA is that in this world, honest kids are prevented from having the same fun that their lying friends are having.

jonknee 14y ago
They aren't banned from the internet. They're banned from disclosing personal information (e.g. social networking) without parental consent, which at their age is probably not a bad thing. Wikipedia, Google and the rest of the internet are all fair game. So is any site that goes through with the parental consent part. Sites that do not tailor to kids typically do not go through the hassle because under-13 also means they aren't going to spend any money.
- stickfigure 14y ago
  The practical result is that kids are banned from nearly any site that could conceivably discover their age - presumably even by commenting in a forum or on a blog entry. Actually, nix that. The practical result is that kids are taught to lie about their age. Fortunately this skill will come in handy when it's time to get a fake ID and buy booze.
  - deleted_account 14y ago
    No, that's not the practical result. You don't run afoul of COPPA by just knowing someone's age; you get into trouble when you knowingly collect the personal information of children under 13 without their parent's permission. Honestly, I would think this crowd would be more disappointed that "banned from nearly any site" has become synonymous with "unwilling to submit all your personally identifiable information."
    - guard-of-terra 14y ago
      That's a nice distinction but how does it proctect children? You being unwilling to submit personal information also makes you banned from almost all the web, including e-mail services.
      - deleted_account 14y ago
        You seriously misunderstand COPPA; it is not designed to protect children. It's designed to protect children's privacy.
        guard-of-terra 14y ago
        Is protecting children's privacy orthogonal or even conflicting with protecting children? Because you make it sound like that. UPD: Let me show you an example: Pretend we're talking about some law and you're arguing it's not designed to protect me, but to protect my body. My first thought: the hell are you going to do with my body? Because, my body is what makes me me. If you protect it but not me perhaps you're going to sell my organs away.
        deleted_account 14y ago
        Great example, let's run with it... By your analogy, COPPA would be the law that prevents people from collecting and selling children's organs. Because kids are gullible and and it's easy to convince them out of a kidney or two. Except replace "organs" with "personally identifiable information companies want in order to market shit to you."