Why Google Is Disabling Kids' Gmail Accounts 228
theodp writes "The Washington Post's Elizabeth Flock managed to hold Google's feet to the fire and get an explanation of sorts for why it's making kids cry by disabling their Gmail accounts after years of use. Giving 12-year-olds access to Gmail — unless they are using Google Apps for Education accounts through their school — is proving to be as formidable a task for Google as making renewable energy cheaper than coal. But what about that viral 'Dear Sophie' commercial, asked Flock, in which a father creates a Gmail account for his baby daughter and uses it to send her photos, videos, and messages that chronicle her growing up? 'The implied understanding,' replied a Google spokesman, 'is that the girl in the story does not have access to the account, but that she will have access to it "someday."'"
Re:So COPPA is teaching our children to lie... (Score:5, Informative)
Or go over to yahoo, which is all spammers anyway.
FTFY.
Re:So COPPA is teaching our children to lie... (Score:5, Informative)
Also, the use of the viral video is a little off, since the baby never actually does anything with the account (as the Google spokesman says) - the father signs up for the account and agrees to the terms, the father then composes messages and sends them, the father reads messages received etc etc. Its the father doing things in the babies name, which is a whole different ball game to the kid signing up and using it themselves.
Re:My daughter was extremely upset as well. (Score:3, Informative)
Don't Link Your GMail to Google+ Account (Score:5, Informative)
In reply to some comments / sentiments in this thread regarding how quick Google is to delete accounts, be wary of creating a Google+ account / user profile.
There have been many reports of Google+ accounts being flagged for various reasons (username choosen, duplicate acct, complaints from others, etc) resulting in the linked services, such as, GMail being suspended / terminated too.
Imho, avoid creating a Google+ account - not so easy now that Google is rolling that out across services, so the next best option is not create a profile; leave it as empty as possible. And keep services separate ... don't use the same Google+ account for GMail as one does for other services (ie. YouTube).
Re:Who's fault is it? (Score:5, Informative)
Please read the following;
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act [wikipedia.org]
"fuck you kid, come back when you're 18."
The age is 13, not 18, and because of your ignorance,
"fuck you Moryath, come back when you know what you're talking about"
Son's Account Was Reinstated With My Supervision (Score:5, Informative)
Hi All,
I too was put off by Google's disabling of my son's account, but I decided to give Google a chance and see if they would be reasonable. I sent a note to them in the only way I could come up with, by writing it (by hand on a paper), scanning together, my ID, and my note which was an explanation that my son was really under age, and that as his parent, I was the "holder" of his account, but he was using it under my supervision. I sent the note to their photo ID link, and his account was reinstated. I assume that they actually read the note, and allowed this, but it is possible they have an automated process that accepts any photo you send as ID, and automatically reinstates the account. If they do, shame on them. If they don't, I applaud them for being reasonable.
Rob
It's even worse for Google+ (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Who's fault is it? (Score:3, Informative)
You have it backwards. Having ridiculous laws is much worse than not having laws at all. Ridiculous laws will be broken and this is what undermines the very respect for the law. Also protecting the precious snowflakes at all costs has dire consequences when they meet the harsh bitch called life completely unprepared.
Backwards? I think I was pointing out how ridiculous the requirements for age verification were in the light that a company is exempt merely by allowing for a user submitted, unverifiable, age. The law allowed a dead easy loophole for plausible deniability while setting up a straightforward behavioral conditioning teaching the user to hit refresh, lie, and open the cage door to the cheese.
However, this law does work the way it was intended to. The children can't break it, it's not targeted at them, but at the corporation - so a child lying on the form is not breaking it. When the law is broken, the hammer drops in the thousands and sometimes even million dollar range for the companies who knowingly store (and perhaps use/sell) children's data without parental permission. This law is not about content on the internet and protecting the children from it. It is a law about protecting children from abuse by corporations who target children with personal information (be it advertisements or otherwise) when they are not developmentally prepared for the situation (imprint your product preference on a child for life? Sounds extreme, but this is one of the things the law's requirement to get parents involved is supposed to prevent).
While this law isn't about content, I did bring content into the conversation because age based content verification looks like the same box that COPPA has. Hence my point about it being more important to teach a child when to lie about one's age as being more important than just how to do it. Get an ad supported email address? Probably fine with me as long as I think the kid is old enough not to believe the text advertisement is the end all argument in regards to what they want for Christmas. Have a couple of their 8 year old friends over to watch snuff films? No, not in my house. My kids will know that (and far more subtle distinctions too). I personally like the verification boxes because they'll signal to a child that's still learning the ropes that this is a good time to stop and think - perhaps ask mom or dad.
Finally, I strongly disagree with your opinion about a parent's job to protect a child. A parent should protect their child at all costs - that is their job. Cost however is not always cut and dry. Some things are easy: dive in front of a bus to push your kid out of the way - yes. Give up cable, or your cell/data plan, or whatever so you can have a good life insurance policy (thus making your bus decision not such a hardship/detriment to the rest of the family) - yes. Never let them climb a tree because they might break something, or keep them from playing with other kids because the might catch something? No - successfully raising a coward or hypochondriac does more damage than the immediate protection at early childhood age (besides, kids can turn into those sorts of people well enough without parental assistance). Risking your kid's life (albeit at very small chance of fatality) to teach them about social responsibility: immunizations, blood donation, and other things - again protecting them from those complications only take in the very short and extremely selfish view, not a favor to the child. Pouring energy and activity into the child such that your marriage suffers (and perhaps ends?) - not a long term recipe for protection. Keeping all information about sex away from a kid (or teaching its "absolute wrongness") in the hopes you'll prevent STDs, pregnancy, etc... You're just setting them up for confusion, fear, and marital problems down the road. Teaching them about sex by pointing them at an unfiltered internet and telling them to learn what they want? Same problems from the other side - i
Read before slagging. Compliance rules are short. (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think you 'get' COPPA [ftc.gov]. It doesn't say an internet service needs to monitor your children. It is saying in essence the exact opposite. It says that they have to disclose what data they collect, who they share it with, limit the data collected to only what is necessary to use the service, can't collect any information about the child unless the parent gives explicit permission. If the parent gives permission to collect the data, it allows the parents to tell the service to stop and to delete the child's data. It also lists other rules on what data can be collected and how it is shared... but read it yourself I'm not going to list it all here. The only thing that pisses me off is that I can't stipulate the same conditions to Google for myself.
COPPA is a tool to aid the parent and COPPA is anathema to everything Google is about: collecting data. Data is the life blood of the company; literally. It is easier for them to just say no to those under 13 than to spend a ton of money to set up the required controls. Especially, as I think, most parents are likely to chose not to allow their child's data to be collected nor shared (and I can't blame them one bit). And it is the data that is important to Google, not the child. It is with the data that they generate their revenue. So in a nutshell, they have two choices: 1) spend a ton of money to create and maintain the controls to meet the COPPA requirements and keep children using GMail and other services (which also eat up bandwidth and disk space, both of which also cost money) without gaining any revenue generating data from them in return, or 2) simply bar children from using Google services. Option 2 is way cheaper. Remember in a business the number one rule is that money coming in MUST be greater than money going out. Google is just following their number one rule. You libertarians and neocons can't possibly argue Google's position in this respect, can you? Hell, even business friendly liberals.. yes they exist... can't argue either.
Financially the choice they made makes much more sense for their business (and they are a business, not your cuddly free email provider). Remember, the only reason Google cares at all about the child or anyone else who puts their personal data on a Google server is because they put their personal data on a Google server.
You can try and say it is up to the parent to monitor the child which is a good starting point, but what are you going to do when the biggest services tell you they are going to store and possibly share (at their discretion not yours) your child's data and there is nothing you can do about it? Tell your child not to use the internet? Good luck with that. Seriously... good luck. The rest of us understand that you can say no, but if they can get access to the internet, anywhere, they are going to start using it. The library, a friends house, wherever. Especially if all their friends are using it, and then it will happen no matter what you say or do (unless you are one of those who chose to live in the backwoods of Idaho because 'the government is out to get you'... but if that's the case, you have more serious problems, and it ain't the government). So you might as well have them use it at home. And it would be nice to know who knows their name and where they live, and better yet, tell them to mind their own business.
As to how to verify the parent:
Re:You say that in jest, right? (Score:3, Informative)
The bible and it's ilk the Koran and all the rest are some of the worst set of "moral teachings" mankind has ever inflicted on itself.
You have only to do two cents worth of internet search or read God is Not Great by Hitchens or Why I am Not A Christian by Russel or anything by Dawkins and especially Sam Harris's The End of Faith http://www.samharris.org/ [samharris.org] to explode the idea that religion is moral, or was moral at one time in the past
This is not something where you one say "well, you say this and I say that so both our arguments are equally valid.. because it's about morals" because religionists exactly DON'T believe that morals are relative and neither do scientists..
People behave in the ways they do because of genetics and environmental pressures. A part of that behaviour is the apprehension of and feelings about morality. Absent a compelling environmental contingency compelling a person to violent action, and that includes jealousy,. only sociopaths have to be told that killing is wrong. The rest of us *feel* it to be a horror and just plain wrong.
Ditto the uneasy feelings we get when we defy the norms of our society Sure, we can over come them for a reason, but that reason is also typically value - like The Truth- we learned from our society.
No one needs the Bible or any other holy book to help them to feel moral. It's a part f our genetic inheritance.
Ditto a moral society. Science is what produces a moral society because science brings us to truth and reality and when that meets our genetically mediated desire to "not do evil" and to empathize with our fellow human, we then can effectively meet those goals.
It;s no coincidence that religion is the number one source of wars throughout history, always in the name of doing good. That's because it's false knowledge, bad knowledge , with a Bronze Age understanding of How People Work and How The World Works and when THAT is what is guiding your inborn desire to achieve good and peace in the world, THIS is the result: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac [youtube.com]