6 ms·

> Google [will] delete your account with no recourse if you admit you’re only 10. The US gov is mostly responsible here, not Google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wi

by byoogle 12y ago

> Google [will] delete your account with no recourse if you admit you’re only 10. The US gov is mostly responsible here, not Google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Pro...

pekk 12y ago
That act was passed by elected officials
- mempko 12y ago
  And google pays for lobbying. Interesting that most bills are written by private companies. I wonder what bills google wrote and gave to these "elected" officials. Google isn't paying millions in lobbying for nothing.
  - MBlume 12y ago
    Bet you $100 that if Google lobbied about that bill, they lobbied against it.
    - schoen 12y ago
      The bill was enacted less than seven weeks after Google was founded, at a time when users couldn't sign in to Google at all. (The Senate had approved it less than a month after Google was founded.) It's somewhat hard to believe that they had a lobbyist working on the issue in the company's first month of existence.
      - kragen 12y ago
        Thank you for bringing some sanity to this bizarre discussion, Seth. I miss you.
        mempko 12y ago
        Sorry, my post was bad. I did not mean google lobbied for that bill because that would be impossible. I meant it as a general statement. That many of these bills are written by private companies. Google definately works on legislation.
      - mempko 12y ago
        Thank you! To be more clear, I was not saying google lobbied for that bill. Though re-reading what I wrote, I admit can be confused for that.
  - nicobn 12y ago
    What you say may be true, but I very much doubt that Google would lobby for a law that creates headaches for them. COPPA compliance is a major PITA. I doubt any business would lobby for such onerous requirements.
erbo 12y ago
When Electric Minds was running under my administration, I had a policy that we would delete any account from someone we knew to be under 13, just because the requirements for dealing with the personal information of children under 13 were way too onerous and resource-intensive for the operation we were running. Our policy explicitly stated, "This is a consequence of the U.S. Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, and Electric Minds is not responsible for this law or its effects." (In other words, "This may be bullcrap, and we may even believe it's bullcrap, but we've got to follow it anyway, so life sucks like that.")
kragen 12y ago
Keeping your account on somebody else's server is mostly responsible, because that makes it vulnerable to nonsense like this. Google is very much oriented toward everyone keeping their accounts on somebody else's servers, ideally Google's. That's what I object to.
- TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
  I generally try to avoid starting sentences like this, but here goes: No. Just no. 10 year olds probably don't have the resources to run their own hardware, insofar as 10 year olds don't earn money, can't own property (in a legal sense), and are not wholly responsible for their own actions. Therefore, a 10 year old having an account with a 3rd party unbeknownst to the parents is a security / child protection / legal nightmare. Saying "keeping your account on somebody else's server is mostly responsible" is disingenuous because the 10 year old has to keep their account on somebody else's server. Edit: clarity
  - kragen 12y ago
    I am disappointed in the extreme level of rudeness in your response. I note that it seems to be occasioned by your not having been able to understand my message, with the result that the person whose dishonesty you are attacking exists only inside your own head. 10-year-olds can keep their data on their own server as easily as they can keep their books in their own bedroom in their own house, sleep in their own bed, call their parents on their own cellphone, and edit videos on their own computer. While the 10-year-old may not have legal title to any real estate, it is not therefore necessary for them to live in an institution. They can live with their family. Hopefully that clarifies my message for anyone else who may have misunderstood it.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
      Who's responsible for the actions and security of a minor and their property? Can a minor enter in to contracts for services to connect the physical infrastructure to the outside world? Can a minor hold insurance policies against loss or damage to 3rd parties? Should a minor be tasked with the responsibility of keeping their belongings and data safe? > They can live with their family. Or legal guardian. That's my point. Children probably do need protecting, so their guardians are tasked, legally, with those responsibilities. Therefore, ownership, security, consequences of actions, etc., aren't clear cut when it comes to children.
justicezyx 12y ago
Well, think about it, Google will be more than happy to serve a 10 year's old child... The implication is so huge that if there isn't such a law, Google will do whatever meaningful to attract the children...
etha 12y ago
Hardly. Google could simply ask the children to fax in signed permission statements from their parents, as websites that actually make an effort to support child users do. Neopets had this figured out 15 years ago. Google chooses not to do that despite having the resources, and they are responsible for the consequences of that decision.

by byoogle 12y ago

pekk 12y ago

That act was passed by elected officials

mempko 12y ago
And google pays for lobbying. Interesting that most bills are written by private companies. I wonder what bills google wrote and gave to these "elected" officials. Google isn't paying millions in lobbying for nothing.
- MBlume 12y ago
  Bet you $100 that if Google lobbied about that bill, they lobbied against it.
  - schoen 12y ago
    The bill was enacted less than seven weeks after Google was founded, at a time when users couldn't sign in to Google at all. (The Senate had approved it less than a month after Google was founded.) It's somewhat hard to believe that they had a lobbyist working on the issue in the company's first month of existence.
    - kragen 12y ago
      Thank you for bringing some sanity to this bizarre discussion, Seth. I miss you.
      - mempko 12y ago
        Sorry, my post was bad. I did not mean google lobbied for that bill because that would be impossible. I meant it as a general statement. That many of these bills are written by private companies. Google definately works on legislation.
    - mempko 12y ago
      Thank you! To be more clear, I was not saying google lobbied for that bill. Though re-reading what I wrote, I admit can be confused for that.
- nicobn 12y ago
  What you say may be true, but I very much doubt that Google would lobby for a law that creates headaches for them. COPPA compliance is a major PITA. I doubt any business would lobby for such onerous requirements.

erbo 12y ago

When Electric Minds was running under my administration, I had a policy that we would delete any account from someone we knew to be under 13, just because the requirements for dealing with the personal information of children under 13 were way too onerous and resource-intensive for the operation we were running. Our policy explicitly stated, "This is a consequence of the U.S. Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, and Electric Minds is not responsible for this law or its effects." (In other words, "This may be bullcrap, and we may even believe it's bullcrap, but we've got to follow it anyway, so life sucks like that.")

kragen 12y ago

Keeping your account on somebody else's server is mostly responsible, because that makes it vulnerable to nonsense like this. Google is very much oriented toward everyone keeping their accounts on somebody else's servers, ideally Google's. That's what I object to.

TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
I generally try to avoid starting sentences like this, but here goes: No. Just no. 10 year olds probably don't have the resources to run their own hardware, insofar as 10 year olds don't earn money, can't own property (in a legal sense), and are not wholly responsible for their own actions. Therefore, a 10 year old having an account with a 3rd party unbeknownst to the parents is a security / child protection / legal nightmare. Saying "keeping your account on somebody else's server is mostly responsible" is disingenuous because the 10 year old has to keep their account on somebody else's server. Edit: clarity
- kragen 12y ago
  I am disappointed in the extreme level of rudeness in your response. I note that it seems to be occasioned by your not having been able to understand my message, with the result that the person whose dishonesty you are attacking exists only inside your own head. 10-year-olds can keep their data on their own server as easily as they can keep their books in their own bedroom in their own house, sleep in their own bed, call their parents on their own cellphone, and edit videos on their own computer. While the 10-year-old may not have legal title to any real estate, it is not therefore necessary for them to live in an institution. They can live with their family. Hopefully that clarifies my message for anyone else who may have misunderstood it.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
    Who's responsible for the actions and security of a minor and their property? Can a minor enter in to contracts for services to connect the physical infrastructure to the outside world? Can a minor hold insurance policies against loss or damage to 3rd parties? Should a minor be tasked with the responsibility of keeping their belongings and data safe? > They can live with their family. Or legal guardian. That's my point. Children probably do need protecting, so their guardians are tasked, legally, with those responsibilities. Therefore, ownership, security, consequences of actions, etc., aren't clear cut when it comes to children.

justicezyx 12y ago

Well, think about it, Google will be more than happy to serve a 10 year's old child... The implication is so huge that if there isn't such a law, Google will do whatever meaningful to attract the children...

etha 12y ago

Hardly. Google could simply ask the children to fax in signed permission statements from their parents, as websites that actually make an effort to support child users do. Neopets had this figured out 15 years ago. Google chooses not to do that despite having the resources, and they are responsible for the consequences of that decision.