W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-privacy@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: Children's online privacy.

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 12:35:32 +0100
Message-id: <AEB85423-77A2-4ABC-A2AB-17C09BCCD303@apple.com>
To: "public-privacy@w3.org list" <public-privacy@w3.org>, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>

On Nov 7, 2012, at 12:30 , Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com> wrote:

> Fred,
>  
> I agree that child oriented UA s are needed, and this would tie in with a PUA remit by defining W3C recommended features.
>  
> Also, the difficulty of assuming consent when the user is a child is another strong argument for privacy by default.
>  
> I also think it would be a good idea to standardise capabilities to help parents restrict access to porn sites etc., either through blocking in a child oriented UA or (better) an explicit indication to websites of a child’s legal status (along with some future COPPA+ style legislation requiring websites to take notice).
>  
> Mike


Something that was noted at a privacy workshop was the point that if a website has the means (and maybe responsibility) to work out whether a visitor is a child or not, that in itself is yielding some information about visitors (and hence part of their privacy), and, of course, enables behaving differently with respect to children.  (Children are not, for example, police officers, and children, once identified, can be targeted by advertising.)


>  
> From: Fred Andrews [mailto:fredandw@live.com] 
> Sent: 07 November 2012 02:55
> To: public-privacy@w3.org
> Subject: Children's online privacy.
>  
> Note sure if this has come up before but there is some interesting discussion about FTC rules relating to online privacy for children:
> 
> Here are the proposed changes:
> http://ftc.gov/os/2012/08/120801copparule.pdf
> 
> NY Times article:
> https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/06/technology/silicon-valley-objects-to-online-privacy-rule-proposals-for-children.html
> 
> Slashdot
> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/11/06/2239233/a-trail-of-clicks-culminating-in-conflict
> 
> Apple's response:
> http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/copparulereview2012/561789-00096-84317.pdf
> 
> IAB comments:
> http://www.iab.net/media/file/IAB-Comments-COPPA-Rule-Review-16-CFR-Part-312-Project-No-P104503.pdf
> 
> ACT comments:
> http://actonline.org/pressreleases/2012/09/26/ftc-taxes-apps-privacy-changes-result-in-quarter-billion-dollar-cost-to-education-app-developers/
> 
> The responses are interesting.  There is the 'show us the harm' tactic, the 'we don't control the platform' excuse, the 'damage to the economy' tactic, the 'destroy the market' tactic, the 'we have it all under control' tactic.  Sound familiar.
> 
> Part of my motivation for the PUA CG work is from seeing children today using what has become a spyware platform.  Most of the  web apps I see very young children using need no web access at all, apart from downloading their resources, and could well be run in a sandbox, avoiding many of the collection issues.  You see children being forced to sign up for email accounts just to download free apps (Windows 8 cough) and being channeled into using cloud storage.   What legacy is this to leave to the next generation?
> 
> I am quite hopeful that the PUA CG can deliver a platform that limits the UA monitoring in children's web applications.  I would like to let the FTC know that their concerns are not being ignored in the web platform, but my 'diplomatic' skills are a little challenged.
> 
> cheers
> Fred
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 11:36:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 11:36:10 GMT