Google Hit With FTC Complaint Over 'Inappropriate' Kids Apps (nbcnews.com) 23
The Federal Trade Commission is being asked to investigate how apps that may violate federal privacy laws that dictate the data that can be collected on children ended up in the family section of the Google Play store. From a report: A group of 22 consumer advocates, led by the Institute for Public Representation at Georgetown University Law School, filed a formal complaint against Google on Wednesday and asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether the company misled parents by promoting children's apps that may violate the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and Google's own policies. "The business model for the Play Store's Family section benefits advertisers, developers and Google at the expense of children and parents," Josh Golin, executive director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, said in a statement. "Google puts its seal of approval on apps that break the law, manipulate kids into watching ads and making purchases."
Among the examples cited in the complaint are a "Preschool Education Center" app and a "Top 28 Nursery Rhymes and Song" app that access location, according to an analysis by privacy research collective AppCensus. Other apps, including "Baby Panda's Carnival" and "Design It Girl -- Fashion Salon," were among those listed that sent device identification data to advertising technology companies, allowing them to build a profile of the user. The complaint also spotlights several apps that may not be age appropriate, including "Dentist Game for Kids," which lets the player give the virtual patient shots in the back of their throat.
Among the examples cited in the complaint are a "Preschool Education Center" app and a "Top 28 Nursery Rhymes and Song" app that access location, according to an analysis by privacy research collective AppCensus. Other apps, including "Baby Panda's Carnival" and "Design It Girl -- Fashion Salon," were among those listed that sent device identification data to advertising technology companies, allowing them to build a profile of the user. The complaint also spotlights several apps that may not be age appropriate, including "Dentist Game for Kids," which lets the player give the virtual patient shots in the back of their throat.
Until execs have to forfeit bonuses nothing will c (Score:1)
Hand out large fines the folks making the bad decisions. Refund all purchases for kids apps, ban the app makers and google from making kids apps for 5 years
Re: (Score:1)
This is just another example of parents putting the responsibility of raising their children onto someone else. Online or app access should start off tightly controlled and become less restrictive as the child ages. Setting a good foundation when the child is young should pay dividends as they age. Anyone who is depending on the government to protect their child should probably be sterilized before being allowed to pollute the gene pool any further.
Android Harbors Too Much Premission Liberty (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Android Harbors Too Much Premission Liberty (Score:4, Insightful)
That's been the case since Marshmallow (Android 6, released 3 years ago). You can selectively allow or deny apps individual permissions. The only permission you're not allowed to block is network access (which would turn ad-funded apps into free apps). Some apps break when you block a certain permission. But if a kids game refuses to run because you blocked access to the contact list, that's a pretty good sign you should just delete the app. (And "unnecessary" is subjective. To you a game needing network permission for ads is unnecessary. To the game maker, it's necessary because the ads are what put food on his table.)
Frankly, I don't know what more Android could do while still allowing app writers freedom, without starting to do annoying in-your-face elevation privilege popups like Windows Vista did every time you tried to run something. That's the choice you have to make here. It's not malignant apps running rampant vs them not running rampant - that's a narrow, biased interpretation of the trade-offs here.. It's malignant apps being possible vs. Big Brother having veto power over every developer in the world (Apple's model). You can strive for a balance of power between app authors and users (allowing some tricky authors to abuse some careless users), or you can give complete power to a regulatory agency.
I do find it amusing though that for decades I've been criticized and downmodded for arguing that a benevolent oligarchy can be superior to a democracy. Yet that's exactly what so many people are voting for when they choose Apple's model over Google's. Damn hypocrites. (I oppose Apple's model because they don't give you any option to escape their oversight. A benevolent oligarchy must retain the ability of the people to dump it if they wish, in case it ever stops being benevolent. Apple takes away that oh-so-important right from its users, probably for selfish reasons (so it can extort a 30% tax on all apps). Whereas with Google it's up to the user whether they want to restrict themselves to the Google Play Store, or use other stores.)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know if that fallacy has a classical name, but what you did was unacceptable.
You simply redefined "ad" as something the previous poster didn't mean.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with you claim and comparison, the benevolent oligarchy over a democracy, is you have one or the other, not both and of course in computer terms you can have Android and Apple at the same time. The inherent failure of a benevolent oligarchy is, it doesn't have to be benevolent because you can not change it and hence it will not be benevolent because you can not change it and it doesn't have to listen to you and will not listen to you. So starts out benevolent and rapidly devolves into ruthless
Please keep the pitchforks away from me and my fam (Score:1)
I donâ(TM)t agree with the degrees of societal sanitization that some parents inflict on their children, but thatâ(TM)s their choice. I *do* take offense whenever these helicopter parents expect others to enforce their shitty censorship on everyone else.
Video games were supposed to turn my generation into murderous monsters, as television and movies were supposed to the generation before. I remember maturity ratings slapped on games and music to âoeprotectâ us impressionable youth.
When i
They clearly missed the training video (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
So what's wrong with the dentist game? (Score:3)
Since she was two or three years old, my daughter has had a "doctor" play set which includes a stethoscope, thermometer, syringe for giving "shots", otoscope for looking in ears, etc. How *exactly* is playing professional harmful to her?
Perhaps this is coming from one of those people who confuses toast with firearms, and apparently also shots with some kind of criminal violence?