Thanks for this heads up about an interesting and provocative study. What I find disturbing about it is the fact that the question of tracking is downplayed in your survey, even though the issue of tracking is a <i>core</i> concern of the policy measures the study purportedly addresses. <div>
<br></div><div>What emerges from your findings is that most parents think that age restrictions have to do with issues of maturity and safety which they can address themselves (without the heavy hand of the state, thanks very much) through awareness/monitoring of their children's activity (and state guidelines). Only two parents in the sample mention privacy -- none, I gather, mention tracking and targeting. </div>
<div><br></div><div>I'm willing to bet you would have gotten very different results if you had specifically addressed the questions of behavioral tracking, data-mining, and targeted advertising by, say, asking parents whether age restrictions should be set on the ability of companies to collect, save, and mine detailed data about children's behavior in order to market to them more effectively -- which is, of course, the question at the heart of the tracking measures you discuss. It is telling that only 9 percent of respondents reported that their children's data were used for marketing and advertising -- when, of course, this is the case for 100 percent of those parents whose kids are on Facebook. Thank you for noting, in this regard, that. "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">Given how few parents believe their children’s data have been used for marketing and advertising, it is likely that: parents are either unaware of how these techniques work or they imagine a different aspect of marketing when they report their concerns regarding personalized marketing and targeted advertising." </span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br></span></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#111111" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px;">That lack of awareness is an important qualification to the following policy-related finding that parents, "</span></font><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">are not looking for mandatory age restrictions as the solution to their concerns about safety and privacy." The preferred option for protecting children identified by your respondents: "getting parents involved in children's online activities," has to be understood against the background of the lack of awareness and understanding of tracking practices. Parents who do not understand how tracking works and don't know that it's taking place aren't going to be able to address the issues it raises through involving themselves in their children's activities. </span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">I'm also not sure how to square your claim that parents are not in favor of mandatory age restrictions with your finding that, with respect to data collection, "</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">57 percent would prefer restrictions, even if it means that children in general will be banned from social network sites." (It's suggestive that you frame this finding by noting that, "</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">Even when the focus is on data collection, parents are not uniformly in favor of restrictions on what information social network sites can collect about children." Another way to frame it would be to note that "A significant majority of parents favor some type of age-based restriction on what information social network sites can collect about their children"). </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">I couldn't find a table for that, so I'd be curious to know how that question was framed. It seems to me to be a significant finding -- given the fact that a majority of parents claim to be willing to sacrifice access in order to protect their children from certain types of tracking. What if the option were that children could have access to such sites without being tracked? My guess is that you'd see an even larger majority of parents saying they would prefer access with restrictions on tracking, even if that meant government regulation. </span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br></span></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#111111" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px;">When it comes to data-collection regulations, I think it is important to qualify your conclusion that, "</span></font><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">Our data show that the majority of parents think it is acceptable for their children to violate access restrictions if they feel as though doing so furthers their children’s educational objectives, enables family communication, or enhances their children’s social interactions" with the observation that most of the parents who feel this way seem to have a lack of awareness or understanding of the data collection regimes that the legislation (which leads to access restrictions) is meant to address. To my mind this qualification (combined with the finding that a majority of parents do support some type of age-based restriction on data collection) significantly weakens the case against the regulations you target. </span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">While I'd agree with your conclusion that "universal privacy protections" are in order...I would also express concern about the framing and the practical import of your article. You make a case against the consequences of a law that is not doing what it is supposed to do (thanks largely to the way the industry has responded), but to my mind a much less effective case against the actual goal (of protecting children from the sophisticated forms of manipulation being developed by data driven marketers). Nor do you make it clear that parents are opposed to this kind of protection, at least in the case of tracking, monitoring, and targeting. Then you use the industry response to indict the law. We might equally critique Facebook which chooses to respond by restricting access ineffectively (and thereby getting to have its "underage" data too), rather than providing parents with information and options. Couldn't Facebook easily bypass the onerous process of parental notification and consent by providing an opt-out provision: children who indicate that they are under a certain age would be allowed access, but exempted from tracking. It seems that many of the issues you raise including parental preference for restrictions on data collection could be addressed by making the law stronger (preventing Facebook from tracking anyone under 13) rather than scrapping it. </span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">There is something cynical about the </span>asymmetry in verification requirements: there must be verifiable parental consent for those under 13 to acquiesce to tracking, but sites are not required to get verifiable proof that those who say they are <i>over</i> 13 really are. In other words, the workaround adopted by Web sites like Facebook is clearly structured to encourage lying -- and thereby to encourage tracking of "underage" users. Is it <i>really</i> complying with COPPA to allow claims to be over 13 to be made without verification?<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "> </span></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#111111" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#111111" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px;">Could we agree that what is going on, if we step back and sum it up is that Facebook is phenomenally popular among young people and an important part of their social lives. However, it is also a commercial site whose economic model relies on detailed monitoring, data mining, and target marketing. We have, as a society, placed ourselves in a position in which an important infrastructure for young people's self-expression and sociality relies on submitting them to the most sophisticated techniques for surveillance and marketing yet developed (remember when we used to worry about advertising in the schools?). In order to placate ourselves we have developed a law that, while purporting to protect children from -- or at least inform their parents about -- these techniques, actually allows the tracking and targeting to take place "unofficially." </span></font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#111111" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#111111" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px;">You point out that the law is ineffective and that parents who admittedly don't know how tracking works don't support government mandated age requirements -- except for the significant majority of parents who support age-based restrictions on data collection </span></font><i style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px; ">even at the expense of loss of access</i><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#111111" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px;"> by their children to important resources for sociality, family communication and education (am I misreading this finding? -- it seems like it runs counter to much of your argument). If the goal is universal privacy protection, I'm not sure why it wouldn't make more sense to provide workable protection for groups that have historically been easier to shield from the most aggressive forms of marketing and work from there, rather than to say the law should be scrapped because industry didn't respond to it appropriately and parents don't seem to want age-based restrictions (except for the majority who think they are appropriate when it comes to data collection). Indeed, the tone of the article, with its framing of regulation as an impingement upon personal freedom and parental authority undermines the concluding gesture toward universal -- and thus stronger -- privacy protections -- unless these end up being a matter of industry self-regulation. That would certainly fit well with the industry agenda, but I'm not sure it accurately reflects public preference (I know, I know, get funding for my own study...actually, there's one underway).</span></font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#111111" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px;"><br></span></font></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">If you're submitting this paper to the FTC in this form, I'd certainly be interested in addressing the arguments you make here in public comments to the FTC. </span></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#111111" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 15px;"><br>
</span></font></div>