[iDC] Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook's 13+ Rule

[Tony Fish - AMF Ventures]

Thank you all for the insights and the converstation....I have added some
personal comments from EU/ London in CAPS below to make them easy to read.
I am also running a survey on this topic - please do complete it if you have
some time it takes about 10 minutes.  The final summary will be free and I
will share the raw data with those who request it.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NFHR3BF

Tony Fish (Author - My Digital Footprint)

-----Original Message-----

I totally agree with you that tracking is indeed a core issue here.  But
it's also clear that it's not something that parents, children, or adults in
general understand [ I RAN A WORKSHOP WITH "SCREENAGERS" LAST WEEK ON THIS
TOPIC IN LONDON LAST WEEK - THE KIDS ARE SO MUCH MORE AWARE].  COPPA doesn't
educate people about tracking.  It basically says, if you're 13 or older,
you can be tracked no question. If you're under 13, you need your parents'
permission to get tracked/to get access. [100% AGREE]

I do not believe that age restrictions do anything to address tracking.
[100% AGREE] Adults are clueless about tracking. [90% AGREE - I SAW SOME WHO
GET IT LAST WEEK]  Chris Hoofnagle's work showed this.  And we couldn't even
run measures on what parents knew because their basic literacy was so low.
They simply don't understand how targeted marketing works let alone how data
is shared, sold, or used.  

>From my personal position, I believe that we need to 1) create rock-solid
education programs to address the media literacy problem here; 2) focus on
devising solutions to minimize how data is is abused that do not focus
specifically on children.  All populations are vulnerable with this regard
and it doesn't help kids if clueless parents are making poor decisions on
their behalf without understanding what's at stake.  
[I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN ANYWAY, AS WE SEE THE KIDS WHO
GET IT EDUCATING YOUNGER SIBLINGS AND THEIR PARENTS AND GRANDPARETNS -
PERSONALY NOT THAT WORRIED.  I AM HOWEVER VERY WORRIED ABOUT THOSE WHO WILL
BE EXCLUDED AS THE TRACKING ANALYSIS SHOWS THEY HAVE LITTLE OR NO ECONOMIC
VALUE AND THEREFORE BECOME EXCLUDED OR HAVE TO PAY FOR "FREE" SERVICES]

Protectionism from the State doesn't tend to do a lot of good.  It motivates
industry and parents and children to circumvent the restrictions by any
means possible. [ WHY DO KIDS LOVE TECHNOLOGY - "AS IT IS A PLACE THEY CAN
GO OUTSIDE OF PARENTIAL CONTROL" - PRIMARY RESEACH] Parents don't want
government playing in-loco parentis even when it's well-intended.  If we
want to help parents and children, we need to focus on empowering them
directly.  They need to understand enough so that they can speak out against
what's not right. [100% AGREE]

I'm a firm believer in Lessig's point that four systems regulate: the
market, the law, social norms, and architecture (or code). I also believe
that the most powerful force is social norms.  If you're upset with the
market and how technology is being employed to help the market, the law
isn't the appropriate solution if it doesn't align with social norms.  You
need social norms and the law to be working together.  This requires
focusing on people, their beliefs, their practices, their attitudes.  [ I
LIKE THIS MODEL BUT.... WE HAVE A SPECIAL AND SPECALIST ISSUE WITH THE CODE
- THE PERSON WHO WRITES THE CODE IMPLEMENTATING THE ALGORITHM (WHICH ALLOWS
FOR DIFFERENTIALTION) BRINGS THEIR OWN BIAS AND THE MARKET MAYNOT BE ABLE TO
UNDERSTAND THE BIAS.  THE MARKET MAY BE SLOW TO REACT TO CHANGE.

As for your suggestion about children opting out from tracking... have you
read the COPPA requirements?  The mere act of collecting a username, let
alone a name or any other PII requires parental permission.  The law isn't
actually just about how the data is used. It's about how the data is
collected.  Even if companies don't use it for targeted marketing, if they
collect the data, they have to get parent permission.  [ DATA COLLECTION IS
A COMMODITY GAME IN THE LONG RUN, STORAGE SHOULD BE SCRAPPED (OTHER THEN
GOVERNMENT IS OBSESSED THAT THERE IS A SMOKING GUN) AS THE VALUE LIES IN
ANALYSIS - WHICH REQUIRES A MARKET AND KEY REGULATION.

One of the most heartbreaking conversations that I had in this whole process
was with a psychiatrist working at a private hospital.  (Note: non-profits
are exempt from COPPA but for-profits, including hospitals, are not.)  She
wanted to create an online hotline-esque program for tweens who were engaged
in self-destructive behaviors, including anorexia, self-injury, suicidal
practices, and child abuse.  She was specifically concerned about COPPA.
But she was told from her lawyers that she couldn't put together an online
forum because she would have to get parent permission.  How do you ask a
parent who is abusing their child to let them join a site focused on abuse?
How do you tell an LGBT kid that they need parent permission for a site
meant to help them figure out how to come out to their parents?  She was
heartbroken and frustrated.  [ SPOT ON TO BRING TO REAL LIFE AND FRUSTRATING
THAT IT IS ILLEGAL TO TELL SOMEONE TO BREAK THE LAW AND JUST DO IT]

MacArthur is running into the same problem.  The moment that they do
anything that's a public-private partnership, they have to abide by COPPA.
That means that they have to focus on data collection, regardless of how the
data is used.  

COPPA isn't just about targeted marketing. If it were, the focus would be on
the usage not the collection.  

danah

On Nov 3, 2011, at 4:00 AM, Mark Andrejevic wrote:

> 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 core
concern of the policy measures the study purportedly addresses. 
> 
> 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.  
> 
> 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. "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." 
> 
> That lack of awareness is an important qualification to the following
policy-related finding that parents, "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. 
> 
> 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, "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, "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"). 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. 
> 
> When it comes to data-collection regulations, I think it is important to
qualify your conclusion that, "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. 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> There is something cynical about the 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 over 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 really complying with COPPA to allow claims to be over 13 to be made
without verification? 
> 
> 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." 
> 
> 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 even at the expense of loss of
access 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).
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 

------

"taken out of context, i must seem so strange" -- ani
http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/
http://www.danah.org/
@zephoria






_______________________________________________
iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
(distributedcreativity.org)
iDC at mailman.thing.net
https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc

List Archive:
http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/

iDC Photo Stream:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/

RSS feed:
http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc

iDC Chat on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647

Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref