Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Privacy United States Your Rights Online

FTC Strengthens Children's Privacy Protections Online 45

Posted by Soulskill
from the don't-think-of-the-children-without-parental-consent dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The U.S. Federal Trade Commission today updated the privacy standards that protect children's privacy online. The new rules say companies must gain parental consent before collecting a kid's geolocation data, photos, and videos. It also broadened existing language to include third parties and companies that collect data on users across multiple websites. 'While the new rule strengthens such safeguards, it could also disrupt online advertising. Web sites and online advertising networks often use persistent identification systems — like a customer code number in a cookie in a person's browser — to collect information about a user's online activities and tailor ads for that person. But the new rule expands the definition of personal information to include persistent IDs — such as a customer code number, the unique serial number on a mobile phone, or the I.P. address of a browser — if they are used to show a child behavior-based ads.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FTC Strengthens Children's Privacy Protections Online

Comments Filter:
  • by pclminion (145572) on Wednesday December 19, 2012 @07:07PM (#42342311)
    How do you know the user is a child and thus subject to special rules? By asking them? If so, this is awesome -- I'll just tell everybody I'm a kid and get all the same privacy safeguards (because my "parent" is me, and he'll never give consent).
  • by s.petry (762400) on Wednesday December 19, 2012 @07:57PM (#42342955)

    I don't think that would hold water in court. It's been a long time since I studied that type of case law, but there is a specific term for that type of contract. Given a couple hours in the law library I would have a solid case against that TOS.

    The equivalent would be to give a contract to an autistic person taking 100% of their profits from their exceptional art talent, and having a statement of "my legal guardians agree to me signing this contract." The contract signed by only the autistic person is legally worth less than toilet paper. The contract is not valid because of that clause and I could sue for not only actual loss but some hefty damages.

All constants are variables.

Working...