Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States Your Rights Online

Amazon Calls Children's Privacy Complaint Groundless 206

Posted by timothy from the you-mean-kids-have-privacy dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Calls Children's Privacy Complaint Groundless More

Amazon Calls Children's Privacy Complaint Groundless

Comments Filter:

  • I hate it when I'm not rooting for the underdog... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OwnerOfWhinyCat ( 654476 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @03:30PM (#5792666)
    ...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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by HogGeek ( 456673 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @03:33PM (#5792694)
      I agree, with one addition. The adult "releases" the information.

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

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

        No, it is the parents job to protect their children, not the rest of the world's. If a parent is going to sit a child in front of a computer and give them internet access that they can't trust to use responcibly, than anything that happens is the parents own fault and only the parents fault, not the website that the kid wondered onto that doesn't even have a solid way of knowing the age of the user.
        • <parent> What?! that $1000 computer I bought can't even babysit?! What's the point! </parent>

          Seriously, I've thought this ever since people were upset kids were watching too much violence on TV or in computer games or seeing porn on the Internet. It's not technology's job to keep children safe (I guess when there are cyborgs having children it might be a different story...)
          • Seriously, I've thought this ever since people were upset kids were watching too much violence on TV or in computer games or seeing porn on the Internet. It's not technology's job to keep children safe...

            Speaking as a parent, I agree with you, but there's something you need to consider. A parent cannot look over their child's shoulder during every waking hour. That's why parents want technology to help them. For instance, the ability to block certain channels or certain content (by rating) on TV. This

            • A parent cannot look over their child's shoulder during every waking hour.

              A parent can work to instill their values in the child to the point where they do not NEED to look over their child's shoulder every waking hour. My parents managed quite well, and I didn't stray very far from what they taught me until I was in college and adult enough to make my own choices. I hope that I can do as well with my son.

              I have little sympathy for the point of view that as a parent you don't want to spend your time watc

              • A parent can work to instill their values in the child to the point where they do not NEED to look over their child's shoulder every waking hour

                You are right of course but you are also letting your ideology get ahead of your common sense. There is no reason why parents should be forbidden aids that help them manage the technologies they and their children use. I may leave my 7 year old watching "Liberty Kids" on PBS while making diner - but he also knows how to change the channel and likes to think of hi
                • There is no reason why parents should be forbidden aids that help them manage the technologies they and their children use.

                  Perhaps you need to review what I've said and point out where I said that parents should be forbidden such aids, instead of assuming that you can infer my "ideology" through one or two short posts to slashdot.

                  • Perhaps you need to review what I've said and point out where I said that parents should be forbidden such aids

                    Then what was the point of your post? The original poster was essentially agreeing that the parents not technologies job to protect their children but also thought it would be nice if tools were available that helped the parent out. Your response was that you had "no sympathy" with a parent who doesn't "want to spend your time watching TV with your children" a fine sentiment but one already ad

            • That's why parents want technology to help them. For instance, the ability to block certain channels or certain content (by rating) on TV. This prevents parents from having to sit in the room while their child is watching TV to make sure they don't change the channel to something inappropriate.

              Speaking as a non-parent, I'll wager that your channel lockout feature does little to protect your kids against violent imagery. The reason is that violence in video games is fairly harmless, because kids are fair

            • Part of the problem is making those restrictions apply well beyond reasonable bounds because parents don't want to have to watch their children all the time. As a result a 16 year-old can drive and have sex (in most states) but cannot: buy an "M" rated videogame, watch an "R" or "NC-17" rated film, purchase pornography or most sexual devices. It's all too common to set age restrictions on minors designed to protect them, but go overboard on them.

              Likewise as much as parents want to protect and benefit their
    • From the zdnet article: Amazon is letting children 12 years old and younger post reviews of toy products without their parents' consent

      Maybe I'm naive, but I have to ask, "How do you enforce this?"
      The poster above suggests using a credit card as proof of age, but still,
      1) if the cc is not being charged, how is the parent to know that it is being used for ID?
      2) How is Amazon to know that the cc is or isn't being used with parent's consent?
      • "How do you enforce this?"

        Easy. You ask users for their date of birth, and then restrict features appropriately.

        • 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.

          • Re:I hate it when I'm not rooting for the underdog (Score:5, Funny)

            by glitch! ( 57276 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @03:53PM (#5792919)
            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 :-)
          • How do you prove that the dob is not false.

            Easy. Do what porn sites do: ask for a credit card info. If it's valid, then you are of appropiate age. Rest assured, the information will only be used for verification purposes and no charges will be made. (* insert pop-up ad to totally unrelated site here *)

            This post is listed in Top 100 Adult Sites. Click here [top100.com] to vote for this post.

            • Assuming you're not joking, I see three problems with this:

              1. Kids will just "borrow" their parent's CC, and it won't do much to stop them
              2. If the person/company operating the site is "unsavory", they will find a way to charge you money. Often without your knowledge. Either by putting something in the small print, or just charging the money and hope you don't notice. This has happened with quite a few "age verification" services.
              3. The large amount of CC info floating around will most certainly enable more CC
              • Assuming you're not joking

                ...there go my aspirations as a stand up comedian... ;-)

                Kids will just "borrow" their parent's CC, and it won't do much to stop them

                Yup, and those parents will have bigger problems that privacy concerns.

                If the person/company operating the site is "unsavory", they will find a way to charge you money. Often without your knowledge

                Just like them Nigerian scam emails. Always distrust by default. There are several age verification systems in the Internet. A site that claims
        • Easy. You ask users for their date of birth, and then restrict features appropriately.

          Hahahahahahaa.....
          My god, man, are you trying to kill me, I laughed so hard at that I nearly had a heart attack.
          They tried this back in the day of the BBS, if you wanted to access an adult area, it asked you for your birthday. Guess how many tries it took me to figure that out and get around it. A 13 year old kid may be a bag of raging hormones, but he isn't stupid. As far as most BBS's were concerned I was born in
      • charge it $5 and then credit back $5.

      • In the perfect sense of enforcement you can't (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        A good option would be to make the parent filling out the consent form charge $10 toward a gift certificate they can spend however they like, but that would appear on the credit card statement as a charge to "Amazon child permission systems." Or some other such that would raise the red flag. Amazon could give away some cutesy little free games (like Frogapult) to entice the children to get their parents to bother signing them up.

        I'd also include (as suggested above) the option of letting the parent pre-s
      • Maybe I'm naive, but I have to ask, "How do you enforce this?"

        More importantly - why should I care?

        If Amazon had a "pedophile" section - that might bother me. Or if there were a chat room on Amazon where people might actually be able to interact with an unsupervised 12 year old... then I might see how that is bad.

        But if a kid is allowed to post up a review... I'm not seeing why the hell that matters - other than the review might suck. Even then, 12 is still pretty mature - 5 year olds... maybe even 7 y
        • Basically, I'm scratching at this as one of these unenforceable laws out there. These laws, while well meaning: you want to protect children, but as other posters here have mentioned, you really can't shore up minor negligent parenting by technology or laws. You can legislate and enforce abuse, certainly, but unenforceable "babysitter" laws are bad for everyone. Recall the v-chip [fcc.gov]?

    • A system that works. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bluprint ( 557000 )
      How about we don't hold people (or companies) responsible for things they can't control? People lie. Kids lie. It is impossible for Amazon to prevent children from posting reviews (or doing anything else). Each parent should be responsible for their own kids' behavior. Not Amazon, McDonalds, Microsoft, Michael Jordan, or anyone else.
    • 12? Man.... I was BBS'ing at 8, and I already knew that I shouldn't be giving out too much info, especially not to creepy people acting over-friendly.

      An option could be to require sites that allow children to submit information to have that information moderated by some sort of government committee approved moderator with some special license/certification.

  • There are no children under 13 (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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 (Score:4, Funny)

    by tacokill ( 531275 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @03:31PM (#5792672)
    Perhaps it was the virus....

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

  • If you looked carefully (Score:5, Informative)

    by unterderbrucke ( 628741 ) <unterderbrucke@yahoo.com> on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @03:31PM (#5792679)
    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.

  • And what about (Score:5, Funny)

    by B3ryllium ( 571199 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @03:32PM (#5792692) Homepage
    And what about "The story of ping"? [amazon.com]

    Ages 4-8.
  • 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 (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jason1729 ( 561790 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @03:34PM (#5792720)
    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 (Score:4, Informative)

    by ih8apple ( 607271 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @03:35PM (#5792724)
    eBay [pcworld.com] is also being targetted by the same complaints and investigation.
    • Wha??????
      eBay is not targeting young kids - hell I can't buy anything for another 2 years, and I've been buying online from most places for ages!

      Odd...

  • Toys R Us affiliation (Score:5, Informative)

    by artoo ( 11319 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @03:37PM (#5792748)
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by valkraider ( 611225 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:05PM (#5793030) Journal
      Isn't Toys-R-Us for PARENTS? Kids don't buy toys, Parents buy toys.
      • I don't know about you, but I was earning my own money (and spending it) years before I hit 18.

        If I wanted to get anal, I could list allowances/gifts/etc, that goes back to at least first grade :)
    • Ummm...

      Nothing in that quote suggests that they're not aiming at adults buying toys for kids. Considering that all purchases at Amazon and Toys R Us require a credit card, I'd be inclined to say that they really aren't aiming at kids, except in the sense of getting children to desire a product, and then to go to their parents saying "Buy me that, buy me that".

      Which seems substantively different from targetting one's site to children. The product is targetted to children. The mechanism for purchase (Which
    • why ? because they have a picture of fluffy bunnies on their toys r us division ? Or a little baby holding a car ?

      What other way can a website advertise the product -even if they are targetting only adults ? More importantly, who gets to decide where the line is to be drawn ?

  • Amazon: worse then Hitler? (Score:3, Funny)

    by sssmashy ( 612587 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @03:39PM (#5792766)

    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.

    • I was just going to post nearly the same thing.
      Hot damn.

      What about people posing as kids? Say I get on there and post a review that says I'm a 12 year old girl. Does it matter what my review says then? Do I have to ask my parents?

      Out of all of the injustices in the world right now - children posting on Amazon without the parents knowing is pretty much at the top of the list if you ask me.
    • I can understand if they are giving personal information, but parents should be watching their kids and not letting them go write whatever tehy want on the Internet. People should be watching for real problem makers on the world wide web.
    • I never thought I'd see his Law invoked in a discussion of online bookselling...

  • Asking for ages (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rf0 ( 159958 ) <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @03:39PM (#5792775) Homepage
    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
    • "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?"

      Cookies, apparently. MP3.com tries it, and it's damned annoying. Go to site, download music, oops you need to provide personal information. Fill in random crap, click okay, the site tells you "due to the CRAPPA act, you can't listen to music"

      Go back later, and it's placed a cookie identifying you as under-age, so you can't sign-up without first deleting (or blocking

  • Where are the parents? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @03:44PM (#5792840)
    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.
    • While I agree with the general idea you're stating here, and I think you were trying to be humourous, I realy wouldn't suggest active monitoring/supervising/proxying what your kids do online.

      For one thing, they're smarter than you when it comes to technology. Always have been, always will be. They can bypass damn near any spying method you can come up with, short of 24-7 watching over their shoulders. Even if they can't, they'll clue in pretty quick that they're being watched, and as much as you may thi
  • Toy Quest Toy Design Contest
    Sounds like the Simpsons episode where the children unknowningly design Funzo
  • 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
    • The old personal responsibility arguement again, eh? Sorry, that won't work anymore. Haven't you heard, personal responsibility isn't in fashion anymore. Government has to tell us what to do and when to do it, otherwise how would we know they are spending our money right?

      Don't force your antiquated views on me. I'm not responsible for my actions. It's always someonelses fault!

      end sarcasum
  • 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... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ryan C. ( 159039 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @03:56PM (#5792943)
    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.
    • but you won't see millions spent on "you must be this tall to enter" signs.

      Just had this vision of usb wired height meters attached to pc's around the world. Before a site lets you access it, you have to measure how tall you are :)

  • on any street in america... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dAzED1 ( 33635 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @03:58PM (#5792964) Journal
    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.

    • The difference is... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by zipwow ( 1695 )
      The difference is that there are likely (or at least potentially) people on any street in America.

      People who will see you opening the mailbox that isn't yours, people who will see you "watching the house". These aren't foolproof, but they're at least possible.

      Conversely, there isn't anyone watching you troll the Amazon boards looking for kids giving away information.

      To clarify: were you saying COPPA is a bad thing?

      -Zipwow
    • 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.

      Not coincidentally, this kind of surveillance (let's call it what it really is, "stalking") can get you arrested in the real world. Why should the bar be set any lower online?

      • You'd have a point if the stalker was breaking into systems and actually, you know... committing a crime. But to make Amazon or Disney or anyone responsible for what a child posts online? Please. Next thing you know, they'll require your ISP's to track and monitor your kids email too...

        It's not a crime for me to open your mailbox (or is it, what if I want to leave you a letter?)... It absolutely is a crime to remove contents of said mailbox without your permission. Last I knew parking on the side of th

  • Being 13 Years Old.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tsali ( 594389 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @03:58PM (#5792968)
    ... 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.
  • 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 no
    • OK, maybe not like they need food and love but like it or not, the internet is part of modern western society and blockading your kids from it is unwise. For starters there's a good chance they'll HAVE to use it for school, in which case they'll just have to use it _at_ school, whether you like it or not. On a more general note, it's a wonderful source of diverse and fascinating information, and the sooner your kids learn to use it effectively (eg. learn to filter the crap and cross-check the facts), the
      • I've NEVER encountered porn unless I was looking for porn.

        What? I take it you've never done much research with a search engine, then. There are plenty of sites that make a living by fooling google and the other search engines into ranking them high in the search results, and giving you a page full of pornographic pop-ups and banner ads. (I was trying to find something just a couple days ago, and a good 50% of the google search results were gibberish of that nature.)

        The other thing which you mentioned
  • 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.

  • The deal is... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Call Me Black Cloud ( 616282 ) on Wednesday April 23, 2003 @04:31PM (#5793259)
    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!
  • 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...

  • 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

    • 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.

      So Bezos could be a demon lord trying to open a gate to hell, but you shop there and like it, so it's all good? One of the big problems with capitalism, right there; people don't really give a damn, as long as they can get cheap product.
  • 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.

  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.

Close