US Regulators Propose New Online Privacy Safeguards For Children 25
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: The Federal Trade Commission on Wednesday proposed sweeping changes to bolster the key federal rule that has protected children's privacy online, in one of the most significant attempts by the U.S. government to strengthen consumer privacy in more than a decade. The changes are intended to fortify the rules underlying the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, a law that restricts the online tracking of youngsters by services like social media apps, video game platforms, toy retailers and digital advertising networks. Regulators said the moves would "shift the burden" of online safety from parents to apps and other digital services while curbing how platforms may use and monetize children's data.
The proposed changes would require certain online services to turn off targeted advertising by default for children under 13. They would prohibit the online services from using personal details like a child's cellphone number to induce youngsters to stay on their platforms longer. That means online services would no longer be able to use personal data to bombard young children with push notifications. The proposed updates would also strengthen security requirements for online services that collect children's data as well as limit the length of time online services could keep that information. And they would limit the collection of student data by learning apps and other educational-tech providers, by allowing schools to consent to the collection of children's personal details only for educational purposes, not commercial purposes. [...]
The F.T.C. began reviewing the children's privacy rule in 2019, receiving more than 175,000 comments from tech and advertising industry trade groups, video content developers, consumer advocacy groups and members of Congress. The resulting proposal (PDF) runs more than 150 pages. Proposed changes include narrowing an exception that allows online services to collect persistent identification codes for children for certain internal operations, like product improvement, consumer personalization or fraud prevention, without parental consent. The proposed changes would prohibit online operators from employing such user-tracking codes to maximize the amount of time children spend on their platforms. That means online services would not be able to use techniques like sending mobile phone notifications "to prompt the child to engage with the site or service, without verifiable parental consent," according to the proposal. How online services would comply with the changes is not yet known. Members of the public have 60 days to comment on the proposals, after which the commission will vote.
The proposed changes would require certain online services to turn off targeted advertising by default for children under 13. They would prohibit the online services from using personal details like a child's cellphone number to induce youngsters to stay on their platforms longer. That means online services would no longer be able to use personal data to bombard young children with push notifications. The proposed updates would also strengthen security requirements for online services that collect children's data as well as limit the length of time online services could keep that information. And they would limit the collection of student data by learning apps and other educational-tech providers, by allowing schools to consent to the collection of children's personal details only for educational purposes, not commercial purposes. [...]
The F.T.C. began reviewing the children's privacy rule in 2019, receiving more than 175,000 comments from tech and advertising industry trade groups, video content developers, consumer advocacy groups and members of Congress. The resulting proposal (PDF) runs more than 150 pages. Proposed changes include narrowing an exception that allows online services to collect persistent identification codes for children for certain internal operations, like product improvement, consumer personalization or fraud prevention, without parental consent. The proposed changes would prohibit online operators from employing such user-tracking codes to maximize the amount of time children spend on their platforms. That means online services would not be able to use techniques like sending mobile phone notifications "to prompt the child to engage with the site or service, without verifiable parental consent," according to the proposal. How online services would comply with the changes is not yet known. Members of the public have 60 days to comment on the proposals, after which the commission will vote.
Turn Off The Net. (Score:2)
For the children. We must protect the children since the parents can't. Or just outlaw children. Then we can keep the net. Like cars. And guns. And 12 volt battery chargers. And plastic trash bags. And rope. And dirt. And air.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The American public education system is pre-programmed to teach students Americanism. You can't be enslaved if you are smart. This country was built on slavery, as the only difference now, is that everyone is eligible to be a slave. Race doesn't matter. Just how much money your parents gave you. Unless you are pretty or talented/skillful. Then you can get exploited for extra cash.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Like trying to shield them from even the thought that there are LGBTQ+ people in the world
I'd rather shield them from various religions. Have you even read those allegedly holy books? Wow, sex and violence and all sorts of really nasty shit.
Not to mention that they often have a groomer organization associated with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Like trying to shield them from even the thought that there are LGBTQ+ people in the world
I'd rather shield them from various religions. Have you even read those allegedly holy books? Wow, sex and violence and all sorts of really nasty shit.
The books are always the best part of any religion. Viewed as entertaining allegories, they're quite fun. Viewed as holy texts, their stupid, bigoted, programming languages for the human mind, designed to create blind-faith followers of power brokers. "Blessed are the meek." Really? The real message is blessed are the powerful, and the rest should sit there, do their job, and shut up. That's the message in most bibles.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, that guy had a few really good zingers.
Matt 19:21: Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Bit commie, but otherwise great entertainment. He can't be serious about that, can he?
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, that guy had a few really good zingers.
Matt 19:21: Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Bit commie, but otherwise great entertainment. He can't be serious about that, can he?
Seemed to be the way he lived his made-up life. I'd be curious what Joshua/Jesus/Heyzues, if he actually represented a real person, feels about the way he's been portrayed in the legends surrounding him. Brother man was the original hippie, by most portrayals. Peace and love for everyone, man. Rich people suck (rich man in heaven = camel through a needle). Give everything away and live free, brothers and sisters!
I have a feeling in our lifetimes he'd have been a deadhead.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite bluntly, if Jesus returned today, the people allegedly rooting for him and going "John 3:16" would be the first to crucify him again.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite bluntly, if Jesus returned today, the people allegedly rooting for him and going "John 3:16" would be the first to crucify him again.
In my head, I picture him showing up, looking around a bit, and deciding to hit the bong. "Fuck this savior shit. These people aren't worth it. Pass the fucking doritos, my bro!"
Re: (Score:2)
I still picture him climbing down from that cross and snarling "I didn't let them tack me on for that shit, I quit!"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
deciding to hit the bong. "Fuck this savior shit. These people aren't worth it. Pass the fucking doritos, my bro!"
XD Made my day! I have to remember some of these responses. So much better than mine! ;-)
I'm reusing, but same sentiment! Thank YOU!
Re: (Score:1)
in our lifetimes he'd have been a deadhead.
XD Made my day! I have to remember some of these responses. So much better than mine! ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
While we're at it, Childproof the Unicorns [media-amazon.com].
Weasel words (Score:2)
What does that mean? To me, it can mean spying on them to ensure they're not watching porn, or committing the crime (literally, in many countries) of reading The Anarchist's Cookbook. Or, to ensure teenagers are not doing something worse, such as reading 1984 (Orwell) or having sex.
The election cycle has certainly started (Score:2)
And the "for the children!!!" virtue signaling and posturing is going full swing. Nothing will come of it, at least nothing that actually has any effect on children using the internet however the hell they want.
Parents who pay attention to what their children are up to don't need any further "protections," and parents who don't won't care that Junior put in a fake birthday when he signed up for that porn sight.
Yawn.
Why just the children? (Score:3)
Not enough... (Score:2)
Why just targeted advertising? It's somehow horrible for an algorithm to manipulate a kid who already wants GI Joe to want more GI Joe but it's okay if a kid who doesn't want GI Joe gets manipulated into want some?
Advertising is manipulation. It's almost never simply making-available-the-information-that-a-thing-exists
Maybe if you're under 13 you shouldn't see violence, porn
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever tried turning adblockers off? Any perceived speed gain since 1994 vanishes instantly.
Not to Minimize, but We Need Privacy for Everyone (Score:2)
Safety (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes - faith and traditional prescriptions for behavior are the problem and must be mocked.
Let me clue you in. We have a society now where Senate and House staffers apparently don't understand that it is in appropriate to use the Capitol Building to make sex tapes. We have guests at White House functions that don't understand removing the tops isnt appropriate at such a venue/event.
Without even venturing into if these people also happen to be individualizes who are rejecting traditional sex and gender ro