Amazon Calls Children's Privacy Complaint Groundless

theodp writes "Eleven groups, including the Electronic Privacy Information Center and Junkbusters, filed a complaint with the FTC, asking that it investigate Amazon for violations of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. An Amazon spokesman called the complaint groundless because "Amazon.com is not a site directed at children." So what was the deal with those Amazon Press Releases for the Harry Potter Magical Candy Contest For Children Ages 6 to 13, Toy Quest Toy Design Contest For Kids 12 And Under, and the Be a Poet Contest For All Kids 12 and Under?" Update: 04/23 23:54 GMT by T :theodp writes with an update from Ad Age which says that Amazon has "announced it has removed children's identifying information from its Web sites."

I hate it when I'm not rooting for the underdog...

...but it's hard to fault Amazon too harshly. If you let 12 year-olds type in any form, they have the opportunity to reveal personal information. You can either completely deprive them of keyboard input, or you can attempt to screen for mistakes. I would err to the side of empowering them, and keep a sharp lookout for infractions.

A system that might be helpful (though it would detract from the number of participants) would be to require that kids typing on forms be sponsored by an adult (proven with at least a non-charged credit card number) and that adult would then receive copies of all the text the child typed at an e-mail address of choice. This would give parents the opportunity to monitor what data had got out, and shift the responsibility for properly screening it onto their shoulders, without requiring them to regularly comb through Amazon to see what had been posted.

Of course the deeper social issue of using the Internet as a babysitter and requiring that the rest of the world baby-proof the information universe is certainly worth addressing.

Re:I hate it when I'm not rooting for the underdog

I agree, with one addition. The adult "releases" the information.

Not a lot of sense closing the barn door, after the horse is gone...

Re:I hate it when I'm not rooting for the underdog

One can ask for dob, but I don't see how you can validate it. How do you prove that the dob is not false.

You can ask three questions (that adults can answer), just like at the beginning of Leisure Suite Larry :-)

There are no children under 13

The Iraqi Information Minister confirms that there are in fact "NO CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 13 IN THE WORLD" and thus these complaints are groundless. "The last children were born in 1990" he continued, and stated no more would be born for at least a decade.

Virus

Perhaps it was the virus....

Amazon Tech: "We just can't get rid of this damn thing"

If you looked carefully

All those releases were dated for late 1999. The Children's Protection Act wasn't in place until 2001. Whoever submitted this article sure went to a lot of trouble to make Amazon look hypocritical.

Re:If you looked carefully - 2001 or 1998?

The CNET article links to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 [ftc.gov] on the FTC site.

Re:If you looked carefully

I think the point here is that they had this stuff come out for kids, and then turned around and said that they're not necessarily a kid-oriented site. It may be after the fact, but it's still not the Right Thing to put up (say) fluffy bunnies and deny you do it.

And what about

And what about "The story of ping"? [amazon.com]

Ages 4-8.

Parents

So what was the deal with those Amazon Press Releases for the Harry Potter Magical Candy Contest For Children Ages 6 to 13, Toy Quest Toy Design Contest For Kids 12 And Under, and the Be a Poet Contest For All Kids 12 and Under

Presumably the company would require parental consent of some sort for underaged kids, right?

This smells like a dirty run on Amazon, FWIW.

Patents

Amazon.com can get out of this just by using their normal business strategy. Patent protecting children online. Then they can counter-sue all these groups for violating the patent.

I hope Bezos doesn't read slashdot, I don't want to give him any ideas.

Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]

eBay

eBay [pcworld.com] is also being targetted by the same complaints and investigation.

Toys R Us affiliation

Riiight...and TRU [toysrus.com] isn't aimed at kids at all.

"Toysrus.com
Founded in 1998, Toysrus.com really gained momentum when it formed an alliance with Amazon.com in 2000. The site became an online retailing success story by more than tripling its sales and number of orders from the prior year and by giving guests a terrific online toy-buying experience. Since that time, Toysrus.com and Amazon.com have introduced two additional online shopping experiences with the launch of Babiesrus.com and Imaginarium.com."

Re:Toys R Us affiliation

Isn't Toys-R-Us for PARENTS? Kids don't buy toys, Parents buy toys.

Amazon: worse then Hitler?

Amazon is letting children 12 years old and younger post reviews of toy products without their parents' consent.

How dare they allow my little angels to post a toy review without my express consent! I shudder to think of how many children will have their innocence corrupted because they are exposed to speech that has not been censored by a vigilant adult.

Even worse, they may expose themselves to predators online if they are allowed to post without parental approval. You know: "My name is Jimmy and I think this toy is real neat and I live with my parents in the big red house on the corner of Mulberry Street and the back door is unlocked." That kind of thing. Perhaps we should block our children from accessing websites altogether: it's a dangerous world out there.

Wouldn't answering the slashdot poll violate CIPA?

Well? ANYONE could be under 13.

Asking for ages

So the article suggest that they company should ask for peoples ages. Now this I can see as a deterrant but if a child find that putting in under 13 redirects them to disney.com what is to stop then just signing up again and changing their age?

What I'm basically trying to say that the parents should be monitoring what their kids are doing. Treat the internet as the same the street. Don't talk to strangers or give out personal information

Rus

Where are the parents?

There is a certain amount of responsibility on the parents of said young children to know what they are doing and where they are going on the Internet. Sadly many parents are so ignorant about all this stuff that they don't have the know how to even monitor what their children do online. My daughter (who's currently in the works) is going to be supervised... and I'll likely set up a proxy of some sort so I can bust her later if she goes to playgirl.com ;)

I'm just sick of people blaming their failure as a parent on someone else.

Toy Design Contest

Toy Quest Toy Design Contest
Sounds like the Simpsons episode where the children unknowningly design Funzo

impossible burden on Amazon

The burdens such would put on Amazon.com would be impossible to meet in a cost-effective manner, without hindering adult customers who just want to use the site unhindreed.

It is not Amazon.com's job -- or anyone else's job -- to babysit your kids while you're away. Every parent knows damn well that there is the full spectrum of stuff on the internet, and leaving one's child alone poses that risk.

The right to privacy doesn't mean other people should have to spend their money and their time making sure you and your kids have privacy. Some fuck doesn't wear a condom or some bitch doesn't wear a diaphram, and now all of the sudden, the rest of us have to change our lives because of their mistake and unwillingness to accept responsibility for their children.

Amazon is for everyone

Check it out [amazon.com]. If you read through some of the reviews, you'll see stuff like "I bought it for my 7 year old, but my 17 year old loves it too!"

See? Amazon stuff is for everyone, so can blame them for selling to kids too?

It's a good thing...

whenever bad laws get applied to entities with money. This is usually the only way the laws get struck down or narrowed by the courts.

Why is this law bad? Because lawmakers can't seem to understand what can and can't be legislated. This is another law that makes about as much sense as the "evil bit" joke RFC. Just because it's a good idea to prevent something doesn't mean you can. It would be good to keep childern from playing in the streets as well, but you won't see millions spent on "you must be this tall to enter" signs.

-Ryan C.

on any street in america...

The complaint provides an example of a review that was allegedly posted by an 11-year-old and contained the child's full name along with the child's home city and state.

Come on...drive down a street, any street, and open a mailbox. You'll get the last name. Watch the house. You'll see if there are kids. If you listen, you'll hear the parents call out their kid's names.

If someone is a pervert, being armed with a name and a city/state isn't going to make them do something. They're going to do something because they're a pervert, and they'll be able to get a name with no problem regardless. Come on.

Being 13 Years Old....

... I find that nothing irritates my parents quite like posting my full name, age, and their credit card number to online retail sites.

It is much more effective than disobeying, and the odds of them finding out about my disruptive behavior are next-to-none... plus I get a major website in trouble!

Sincerely,

Johnson Doe (555-55-5555)

P.S. - Is 555-55-5555 a valid SSN? I hope not. I disavow all knowledge if there is a Johnson Doe with that SSN. You're on /. baby.

Re:Being 13 Years Old....

I dunno about all fives, but I use 888-88-8888 as a fake SSN. It's coded into some (maybe more than some) systems as "this person doesn't have an SSN". I dunno why all 8's, and not all 9's or 1's or something. *shrug*

Children Shouldn't Be on the Internet Period

Maybe it's just me, but I've been on the Internet since 1994, and I've seen the ever amounting increase of spam, both porn and otherwise, and lovely porn pop-up ads. Now, I use Mozilla as my browser of choice, but my sister doesn't like it for some reason and is adamant on using Internet Explorer and all of its wonderful quirks. Quite a few times I've had to come over and shut down Internet Explorer 'cause my sister was being absolutely flooded with non-stop gay porn ads.

Between the non-stop porn, the non-stop spam, and especially the mix of the two, I would never, I repeat *NEVER*, let any child of mine access the Internet under the age of 16. I don't care how much he/she/they would bitch and moan, they ain't getting on, it's just *that* simple.

My cousins weren't allowed to watch television until they were 10 and I see that had a positive influence on them. I plan on following the set trend by my relatives and not allow my child(ren) (should I ever have any) to access the Internet, supervised or not. Just way too much crap out there. Supervising them can only do so much to protect them from stuff, the only foolproof method is to ban it altogether.

"Amazon.com is not a site directed at children."

And I would say they are right. It is a site directed at adults who may or may not be interested in buying toys for kids.

not even worth discussion

when i was a kid, (yes pre-internet era) if i wanted to order something through the mail out of the back of a comic or whatever. i sat down with one of my parents and got everything together (forms, envelope, stamp, and check). put it all together, and i would drop it in the mailbox. i was empowered, excited, and in just 6 to 8 weeks rewarded with the with my own mail. that is, i believe what parenting is (if a very small part).

moral (there's always a moral): if your child posts private information on a web site (or on the side of a bridge with spray paint for that matter) place the blame where it belongs, on yourself.

you want to protect your kids, you had better make sure you know where they are and what they're doing.

i'll never understand why it is there are so many things people need to get educated about and get licensed or certified in before they can do them (by law), but any couple of pinheads with functioning genitalia can make a kid... even if they are kids themselves.

Amazon is right in this case

I mean, even their toys [seattleweekly.com] aren't targeted [methodshop.com] toward kids.

The deal is...

Those releases the submitter cited are for the parents. Just because something is about kids doesn't mean it's for kids. I'm quite sure the target audience for the diaper ads in Parents magazine doesn't include my infant son.

But surely the submitter will go to heaven, for not only has he submitted a story about the abuses perpetuated on the common man by a large entity (Microsoft, Amazon, US government), he added his own attack to the submission. Well done, faithful servant. Perhaps you can also dig up some incriminating press releases at Microsoft. Better yet, attack the evil entities where it hurts...the wallet! Did you know that OSDN is "the No. 1 network for delivering visitors who have shopped for or purchased software online in the past 6 months"? Go get 'em tiger! Take down OSDN and then post your deeds here...errr...well...I'm sure we'll hear about them.

Power to the people!

Um....amazon.com does not target children...

By saying a business is targeting children as a market, you are saying that:

1)The business is expecting children to go to the location of that business,

or

2)Go where that business's product is located,

and

3)Purchase that product or service in response to their advertising campaign.

Now tell me: How many 10 year olds have credit cards? Amazon targets the people who are legally able to have their own credit card - ADULTS! Ok maybe 15-17 year olds get copies in their parents' names, but still...

And in response to this quote:
"The fact is that parents give their kids the means to pay for things. When a parent does that, they're in effect giving their consent to their child interacting with a Web site."

This is absolute bullshit. Posession of a credit card has nothing to do with the act of using a website. By applying that quote to ALL websites, does it then imply that parents are giving consent to their children to use pr0n sites simply because they gave their kids their credit card info? If that's the case, then those parents should be the ones accused of endangering children, not Amazon. But let's put that aside for a moment, because that is just a hypothetical.

I don't need a credit card to post to most blogs, message boards, or guest books - which is basically what Amazon's customer review feature is. If this is truly about children giving out personal information, any 6 year old that knows his/her name and address can do the same thing anywhere else.

This is simply another case of parents wanting society to raise their children for them.

I love this rule...

Some website what's information before they'll give you something?

Say you are 12. Boom! no more questions.

I'm always a kid

Whenever I register online, I check the "under 13" box so I don't have to fill in the rest of the crap.

Kids don't have Credit Cards!!

So what was the deal with those Amazon Press Releases for the Harry Potter Magical Candy Contest For Children Ages 6 to 13...

The site is not targeted at children, simply because children do not have credit cards!! These press releases are targeted at the adults to purchase these neat toys for their kids. Duh!

What is it with /.ers hating Amazon? I shop Amazon on a daily basis, and think of them as the greatest web page ever created. Whatever you've got against them, get over it. It's getting kind of old.

site for parents, not kids- credit card required

So what was the deal with those Amazon Press Releases for the Harry Potter Magical Candy Contest For Children Ages 6 to 13, Toy Quest Toy Design Contest For Kids 12 And Under, and the Be a Poet Contest For All Kids 12 and Under?

They're for PARENTS. The only people who can use Amazon are people with CREDIT CARDS, and that rules out most anybody even close to being protected by COPPA.

UPDATE: AMAZON.COM PULLS CHILDREN'S ID FEATURES

Ad Age [adage.com]: A day after consumer groups accused Amazon.com of violating federal children's privacy laws, the company announced it has removed children's identifying information from its Web sites. Amazon said it never intended to disclose the information, and that the children who were identified online had bypassed steps intended to list their comments anonymously. The children, who are 13 and younger, had revealed their e-mail and home addresses in reviewing toys on the online retailer's toy-shopping channel. "The information was information supplied at the instigation of children," said Bill Curry, a company spokesman...

Is the original submitter a total moron?

Does he/she/it really think that Amazon solicits purchases directly from 6 year olds? I mean, who buys their toys...? Their parents. For Christ's sake...

Gifts from strangers

A while ago, I remember seeing some news specials about teen and preteen girls who get strangers to buy them gifts from their public Amazon wish-lists. There was also an article about it on Salon Candy From Strangers [salon.com] . I don't think Amazon is targeting underage girls to do this, but those girls have sure figured out how to exploit it. I wonder if giving users the ability to send presents to kids, if the kids' names and addresses are hidden violates a security policy. Its kind of scary.

Re:Like with television and movies...

Parents should be responsible indeed. Even when your kids shoot up their highschool. If parents (and yes, I *am* a parent) had to take responsibility for their kids actions, and that meant consequences for their kids actions, parents would pay a LOT more attention and be a LOT more involved.

Re:Tough

Amazon does have the policy that those under 18 need parental permission to use their services, but it's not exactly prominently displayed. And technically they may seem to be on the wrong side of at least the letter of the law.

Right. They bury the information on their legalese page. Now what kid is going to look there? What adult is going to look there?

The thing they are not doing is putting a big sign on the front page like the porn sites do that says "By clicking here I assert that I am 18 years of age or accompanied by an adult." And there is definitely no "Only adults beyond this point" or "Kids keep out" sign. So they obviously want kids to enter and think it would be bad for business to say otherwise.

The thing they are not doing is putting a big sign on the front page like the porn sites do that says "By clicking here I assert that I am 18 years of age or accompanied by an adult." And there is definitely no "Only adults beyond this point" or "Kids keep out" sign. So they obviously want kids to enter and think it would be bad for business to say otherwise.

But the point is that no one is complaining about who's browsing Amazon. They're complaining about the later marketing practices. Those things require a conscious decision to address a market that they themselves are claiming are not even shoppers. The poetry press release says "...leading online bookseller Amazon.com (NASDAQ: AMZN) is calling on all kids 12 and under ...", not "... calling on all parents of kids ...". The Harry Potter thing says "Twenty thousand magical candy ideas submitted by children from all over North America", not "...parents of children..." The clear belief is that they are interacting directly with children.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how much more they could do and this seems to be a nasty ploy by the group opposing them. I'm not a big fan of Amazon, but I do think they are being unfairly targeted here.

Unfairly targeted? There's a law that says they have to get a parent's consent. Have they even tried? Looks to me like no one is accusing them of doing a bad job--they are accusing them of not making any attempt at all.