6 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoNo, 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 agoThat'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 agoYou seriously misunderstand COPPA; it is not designed to protect children. It's designed to protect children's privacy.
- guard-of-terra 14y agoIs 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 agoGreat 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."
- guard-of-terra 14y agoThe problem with this sort of forced "protection" is that it ruins my social life. That's what happens to children actually. Or I am forced to shrug off your "protection" (entering into the legal grey zone), that's what happens too.
- deleted_account 14y agoReally? That's ultimately your beef? "It ruins my social life."
- guard-of-terra 14y agoYeah, that's it. I don't need your protection if it ruins my freedom. Children neither.
- deleted_account 14y ago
- stickfigure 14y agoPractical - "I do not think that word means what you think it means." COPPA has not forced Facebook, Google, etc to ask parents' permission. The practical result is that COPPA bans kids from these services. BTW, your website is likely already collecting personal information, including name, email address, and web pages visited. And yes, as soon as you subsequently find out that someone is under 13, you're in trouble.