If sites do this to ourselves we know to invent stuff. It seems now we actually have to teach kids to lie as a matter of course.
Websites aimed at kids are slurping too much info, finds report
A large proportion of websites aimed at children are slurping a concerning amount of personal info, research from cross-border privacy authorities has revealed. The Global Privacy Enforcement Network Privacy Sweep, comprising 29 data protection regulators around the world, looked at 1,494 websites and apps for children. Of …
COMMENTS
-
-
Thursday 3rd September 2015 09:04 GMT Ole Juul
It seems now we actually have to teach kids to lie as a matter of course.
And that's not good. Perhaps better to teach them to turn away when confronted with inappropriate behaviour. In fact, teaching them that not every app or web site is really important and that there are other choices would be a better idea.
-
Thursday 3rd September 2015 09:32 GMT Lee D
Try working in a school.
You either have to give out details and deal with companies when they get stroppy when asked for Data Protection guarantees, or you have to tell the kids to deliberately lie on a form.
And then you have to correlate that with e-Safety and other policies, and then tell them NOT to lie when they want to sign up on Facebook and pretend they are 13 when they are not.
It's an impossible situation that you just have to fudge through and make the best of. If anything, it's a good example to them that just because someone says they are 11 on a chatroom, it doesn't mean they are.
-
Thursday 3rd September 2015 10:32 GMT Little Mouse
"now we actually have to teach kids to lie as a matter of course"
My kids are happy to make up nonsense names in these situations and I'm happy to let them. Applying the principals of "Stranger Danger" is absolutely essential when using the internet. I don't have any qualms about this and don't even consider it "lying" in any sense that implies that they are the ones in the wrong.
But teaching them to Trust No One? That's the part that I've found depressing.
-
-
Thursday 3rd September 2015 08:48 GMT Steve Davies 3
sites are getting smarter though
My Grandchildren are savvy enough to use false details when signing up but some of them are getting wise to the ploy. One of the mhad his regirstration deleted on one site because he'd used the name B Atman. I've seen S.U. Perman rejected as well.
But it is fun when snailmail arrives (via Mailboxes etc) addressed to one of the fake names.
A never ending game of cat and mouse.
-
-
Thursday 3rd September 2015 09:37 GMT Doctor Syntax
Re: Shared personal information
"Why is this not considered as theft ?"
Because it isn't. Theft is taking something away in such a way as to permanently deprive the owner. For instance taking a car & then dumping it elsewhere isn't theft because the owner can recover it - the offence is taking and driving away. Acquiring data doesn't deprive the owner of it. And giving something away, even if misguidedly, isn't theft so it would be difficult to argue that although privacy cannot be restored it hasn't been stolen. Even if a court would consider something as intangible as something that could be stolen.
It's a situation which is novel in terms of the traditional legal framework of theft & maybe also of fraud & needs its own legislation. Possibly the DPA (or equivalent in other jurisdictions) will cover it; maybe there might be something under legislation relating to children. If not something new might be needed.
-
Thursday 3rd September 2015 10:37 GMT Khaptain
Re: Shared personal information
Can it not be argued that it is "identity" theft.
The data is merely the transport agent, so yes I would agree that we cannot justify data theft.
But your "privacy" has been stolen and you are/will be deprived and it certainly cannot be easily restored once thrown out into the hands of the scrupulous..
-
-
Thursday 3rd September 2015 13:17 GMT Khaptain
Re: Shared personal information
I didn't quite mean in it that sense but I see your point.
I was thinking more along the lines that your privacy was intact up until the point where your data ( private identity , email address etc) was "sold" on to third parties. Up until then your private life was not invaded by spam etc.
Your right to privacy, ie not receiving unwanted email, not being on a CallCenter script, not receiving unwanted commercial calls etc has thereafter been violated, your "privacy" has been "stolen" from you..
-
-
-
Thursday 3rd September 2015 10:49 GMT Rol
Re: Shared personal information
If I lose my privacy because a company has unwittingly or otherwise let a third party get access to my details, then in every definition of theft I have suffered a permanent loss.
If it hasn't already been defined properly in law, then I'm sure the Madison affair will eventually set the record straight on this matter and businesses worldwide will be sitting up and paying attention.
I seem to recall the government setting penalties for data breaches some years ago, which surely implies the theft of privacy is very tangible and duly recognised.
I suppose the best outcome, would be the bankrupting of Madison and imprisonment of its directors past and present as a warning to the rest of the clown outfits, that the heady days of supplementing your income by either selling on details or underfunding the IT department is well and truly over.
-
-
-
Thursday 3rd September 2015 09:15 GMT Camilla Smythe
Move along now....
Slurp
Slurp
Slurp
Slurp
Nothing to see here but Profit!
Oh... and it also improves the little darling's browsing experience.
Commenting on the subsequent security breach Brad Spunknuts of fluffytoygames.com, a popular site for Under Nines, said in a canned statement,
"We take the security and privacy of our clients very seriously. The data breach only involved names, addresses, phone numbers and school attended. No Credit Card or Social Security Numbers were revealed. These are also stored in plain text but on a separate server under a fully qualified sub-domain. Someone would have to guess or look it up on Robtex and access to the directory concerned is blocked via robots.txt."
What the Fuck is Your Problem?
-
Thursday 3rd September 2015 09:48 GMT h4rm0ny
Three solid reasons why this is bad.
Provided because there are always some who like to feel smart by contesting popular opinion.
1) Building cradle to grave information profiles gives a lot of power to those who have it. The inability to truly leave behind elements in your past is an unprecedented liability. If you respond to this with either 'you have nothing to hide' variants or that you shouldn't care what others think, then you're seriously underestimating society's willingness to not judge other people or the harm it can do. I invite critics of this one to look through the best selling magazines, TV shows and websites to show just how much most of human society loves to judge and the degree to which society's opinion of you can affect your life whether you agree with it or not. It's all very well to say you're not ashamed of something, doesn't stop and employer or partner or government or neighbourhood acting on it.
2) Children do not have the defences accumulated that adults do. When you respond that intensive profiling doesn't matter because 'you ignore ads' or 'you research your own facts' or whatever, these are defences that children do not have. To be honest, most adults don't have these defences to the extent they think they do.
3) It normalizes surveillance and intensive tracking of individuals by those with power. Society is a delicate balance of power between the government and the individual. We see daily what happens when the government no longer fears the people. Profiling and tracking individuals gives very real power to those with the information. We are at risk of raising a generation that has never not known this and accepts that free handing over of power as normal.
"Think of the children" is a cliché. But that doesn't make children not worth protecting.
-
Thursday 3rd September 2015 12:07 GMT Amorous Cowherder
Stranger Danger!
If some strange bloke approached you in the park when you were a kid and said, "Do you fancy coming back to my house to play some games, just for some fun?", you'd run away screaming and tell your Mum or Dad! Nowadays, we're electronically taking the kids round to the stranger's house!
-
Thursday 3rd September 2015 16:01 GMT Dan Paul
Let's talk about the obvious issue everyone is missing...
WTF is anyone using the Internet as a babysitter for your kids? Are we back to the "plop them down in front of the screen" mode? Didn't work well with the TV and the Internet can be far worse.
If you do, your parenting skills are sorely lacking and your hypocrisy is showing.
It's one thing to let children use the Net while you are able to supervise and assist but allowing them to sign up for various services unattended/unadvised is just ridiculous for the under 13 crowd.
Past that point, they certainly should understand a parent who patiently explains what info to provide, to whom and why and then they can probably browse unattended, but you should still be monitoring their browsing.
The first and only responsible party in this equation is YOU!
-
Thursday 3rd September 2015 17:18 GMT Camilla Smythe
Re: Let's talk about the obvious issue everyone is missing...
Whilst I get the apparent sentiment the obvious issue you appear to be missing is that these leeches/scum are not trying to force porn down the throats of children.
Obviously if it were to be the case, and $Deity help the world if I had managed to, I had participated in a bit of procreation with a consenting $OtherEntity I would take responsibility for the result along with my $OtherEntity.
Otherwise given 'The Advertising Community' are on for taking 'The Moral High Ground' I might expect or hope that they would not act like Scheming Shits so I should not need to protect my progeny against their advances... Either directly or through my own on-line purchases.
-