headers
danah boyd | 1 Nov 15:31
Favicon

Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook’s 13+ Rule

I know that many of you believe that COPPA is intended to curb the practices of companies, but it has serious unintended consequences that affect parenting, education, free speech, and children's rights.  For that reason, I want to share a new study that I've been working on has serious policy implications that affect every aspect of internet studies.  For those who don't know anything about COPPA, it's the U.S. legislation that prompts most major U.S. companies to make their websites 13+.  The regulation is currently being reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission (and they're seeking public comments by Nov 28 so if any of you are interested, please let me know!).

Anyhow, I'm really excited about this study and I hope you will be too!



Title: "Why Parents Help Their Children Lie to Facebook About Age: Unintended Consequences of the 'Children's Online Privacy Protection Act'" 
Authors: danah boyd (Microsoft Research/NYU), Eszter Hargittai (Northwestern), Jason Schultz (UC-Berkeley), and John Palfrey (Harvard) 

danah's blog post: http://bit.ly/tgKZrE
Huffington Post op-ed: http://huff.to/rVocz5
CNet Coverage: http://cnet.co/tnNPw1

Topline: 

A major new nationwide study released today shows that many parents know that their underage children are on Facebook in violation of the site's restrictions.  Parents are often complicit in helping their children join the site.   These new data suggest that, by creating a context in which companies choose to restrict access to children, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which is currently under review, inadvertently undermines parents' ability to make choices and protect their children's data.  This study has significant implications for policy makers, particularly in light of the discussion in Congress and at the Federal Trade Commission about COPPA and other age-based privacy laws.  Based on a national sample of 1,007 U.S. parents who have children living with them between the ages of 10-14, this survey conducted July 5-14, 2011 found:

• Although Facebook's minimum age is 13, parents of 13- and 14-year-olds report that, on average, their child joined Facebook at age 12.
• Half (55%) of parents of 12-year-olds report their child has a Facebook account, and most (82%) of these parents knew when their child signed up.  Most (76%) also assisted their 12-year old in creating the account.
• A third (36%) of all parents surveyed reported that their child joined Facebook before the age of 13, and two-thirds of them (68%) helped their child create the account.
• Half (53%) of parents surveyed think Facebook has a minimum age and a third (35%) of these parents think that this is a recommendation and not a requirement.
• Most (78%) parents think it is acceptable for their child to violate minimum age restrictions on online services.

The authors argue that these data call into question the efficacy of COPPA. Their findings have important implications for COPPA reform and other age-based legislation, such as the "Do Not Track Kids Act" currently being discussed in Congress:

• COPPA is well intended but has major unintended consequences in terms of encouraging general-purpose websites like Facebook, Skype, and Gmail to limit kids under 13 from accessing educational and social opportunities.
• Age-based restrictions imposed in response to COPPA undermine parental authority and limit parents' freedoms to make choices about what their children do and what information is collected about them. 
• As a result of COPPA, lying about one's age has become normal and parents often help children lie. This creates safety and privacy issues.
• Online safety and privacy are of great concern to parents, but most parents do not want solutions that result in age-based restrictions for their children. 
• Parents are open to recommended age ratings and other approaches that offer guidance without limiting their children's access.

The implications of this study go beyond issues of governance.  The age restrictions engendered by COPPA have serious implications for parenting, education, and issues surrounding children's rights.  To learn more, view the complete article at http://bit.ly/ParentSurveyCOPPA



------

"taken out of context, i must seem so strange" -- ani
<at> zephoria






Permalink | Reply |
headers
Mark Andrejevic | 3 Nov 09:00
Picon

Re: Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook’s 13+ Rule

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. 


Permalink | Reply |
headers
Christian Fuchs | 4 Nov 22:32
Picon

Re: Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook’s 13+ Rule

I also read this article and can only agree with Mark and support his 
criticism.

The crucial question (Table 13) only talks about government involvement 
in setting age limits, there is no talk about targeted advertising, 
company practices, political economy, capitalism, etc - the question 
formulation is manipulative and is framed by liberal ideology that stirs 
sentiments against government intervention and ignores (as in the whole 
study) political economy, advertising culture, and capitalism.

No surprise the only conclusion is "but the key to helping children and 
their parents enjoy the benefits of those solutions is to abandon 
age–based mechanisms that inadvertently result in limiting children’s 
options for online access".

No questioning of the corporate character of social media, etc etc. 
There was once a guy called Lazarsfeld making a distinction between 
administrative and critical communication research... This is just 
another study about social media in the whole vast universe of 
administrative social media research output... Such studies are not only 
adminstrative, they are so extremly lacking any theory skills and are 
only boring.

Best, CF

Am 11/3/11 9:00 AM, schrieb Mark Andrejevic:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
Permalink | Reply |
headers
danah boyd | 6 Nov 22:48
Favicon

Re: Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook’s 13+ Rule

[My apologies for my tardiness in responding; this week has been challenging.]

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.  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.

I do not believe that age restrictions do anything to address tracking.  Adults are clueless about
tracking.  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.  

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.  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.

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.  

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.  

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.  

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
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Tony Fish - AMF Ventures | 7 Nov 09:17

Re: Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook's 13+ Rule

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@...
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
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Lynn Clark | 7 Nov 14:31
Picon

Re: Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook's 13+ Rule


This has been a very interesting discussion.  I've been doing ethnographic work with high schoolers in
lower income families and have data that support both the boyd et al. survey and Mark Andrejevic's points.  

I agree with danah that parents aren't very concerned about tracking (although many of us in the scholarly
community believe they should be). Still, I'm not in favor of the lowering or removal of COPPA's age
restrictions, or even of having Facebook et al. remove their "no one under 13" policy.  Yes, parents feel
that their views are more valid than those of the government's, but the "no one under 13"  policy does create
a moment for intervention, e.g., it becomes a point of discussion between child and parent that's
valuable, even if both decide that the child is "mature" enough for violating the policy.  Getting on
Facebook and "at what age should my child get a cell phone?" seem to be two key questions of the tween years,
not just among children and parents but among parents within their
  own social circles.  Getting rid of the COPPA age-based restrictions, then, could effectively remove an
important moment at which parents want the media literacy you want to provide. And whereas I totally agree
that we need to educate parents about media, it's also the case that parents will probably always be two
steps behind youth culture, as that's the nature of youth culture.  E.g., I remember Jackie Marsh
commenting in her work on Club Penguin that most parents first found out about the site when their kids
asked to be on it.  So I think there's a place for legislation and policy that precedes rather than follows
parental knowledge and addresses concerns about the childhood commercial environment that are not
quite articulated in terms of the specifics of online tracking and survei
 llance, but are clearly out in the discourse (witness the popularity of Juliet Schor's Born to Buy etc.).

The last sentence of the article raises two points: abandon age-based mechanisms, and devise new
solutions "that help limit when, where, and how data are used."  I agree that it would be nice if we could
limit tracking for all ages, but I think it's worth recognizing that people feel that children deserve
greater protection than adults, as Mark Andrejevic argues.  If scholars advocated 'no tracking for kids
under 13,' that might then trigger a different discussion: at what age do we as adults want to say, 'sure,
Facebook can own my data?'  Or, "Facebook can own my kid's data after 13 but not before."  I'd like to see more
of that kind of discussion in our media literacy efforts.  Our challenge is to change the parental concern
from that of stalkers to the commercially supported media envir
 onment.

One final point: as this survey was an online opt-in, it's important to recognize that it represents those
online, not "all" parents.   I had to keep reminding myself of that when reading it, as even with the
weighting we can see that lower income and lower education groups are underrepresented.  I'm finding a lot
more concern about surveillance among lower income families (not surprisingly, the concerns are framed
as government not corporate surveillance).  Can someone point me to who might be doing survey research
among this population?

 Lynn Schofield Clark, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Dir Graduate Studies, & Director, Estlow International Center for Journalism & New Media
Dept of Media, Film, & Journalism Studies
University of Denver
2490 S. Gaylord St. 
Denver, CO  80208
phone: (303) 871-3984
email: Lynn.Clark@...
websites: 
http://Estlow.org 
http://lynnschofieldclark.com
http://digitalparenting.wordpress.com

On Nov 7, 2011, at 1:17 AM, Tony Fish - AMF Ventures wrote:

> 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@...
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC@...
> 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
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Tony Fish - AMF Ventures | 7 Nov 15:28

Re: Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook's 13+ Rule

Lynn - thanks I enjoyed your insights and contributions 
As a mobile phone stat - over half of kids in western EU and US under 13 now
have a personal mobile and they use it as a place where we don't have
control.  There are now 5.8bn mobile phone subscriptions (equil to 80% of
population) and only 4.7bn people with toothbrushes.  Mobile is the first
and in many cases the only experience of the web.
Agree that nothing replaces the need for parents to parent, but we appear to
have lost the balance of rights and responsibilies.....
Best, Tony www.mydigitalfootprint.com

-----Original Message-----
From: idc-bounces@... [mailto:idc-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of Lynn Clark
Sent: 07 November 2011 13:31
To: idc@...
Subject: Re: [iDC] Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook's 13+ Rule

This has been a very interesting discussion.  I've been doing ethnographic
work with high schoolers in lower income families and have data that support
both the boyd et al. survey and Mark Andrejevic's points.  

I agree with danah that parents aren't very concerned about tracking
(although many of us in the scholarly community believe they should be).
Still, I'm not in favor of the lowering or removal of COPPA's age
restrictions, or even of having Facebook et al. remove their "no one under
13" policy.  Yes, parents feel that their views are more valid than those of
the government's, but the "no one under 13"  policy does create a moment for
intervention, e.g., it becomes a point of discussion between child and
parent that's valuable, even if both decide that the child is "mature"
enough for violating the policy.  Getting on Facebook and "at what age
should my child get a cell phone?" seem to be two key questions of the tween
years, not just among children and parents but among parents within their
own social circles.  Getting rid of the COPPA age-based restrictions, then,
could effectively remove an important moment at which parents want the media
literacy you want to provide. And whereas I totally agree that we need to
educate parents about media, it's also the case that parents will probably
always be two steps behind youth culture, as that's the nature of youth
culture.  E.g., I remember Jackie Marsh commenting in her work on Club
Penguin that most parents first found out about the site when their kids
asked to be on it.  So I think there's a place for legislation and policy
that precedes rather than follows parental knowledge and addresses concerns
about the childhood commercial environment that are not quite articulated in
terms of the specifics of online tracking and surveillance, but are clearly
out in the discourse (witness the popularity of Juliet Schor's Born to Buy
etc.).

The last sentence of the article raises two points: abandon age-based
mechanisms, and devise new solutions "that help limit when, where, and how
data are used."  I agree that it would be nice if we could limit tracking
for all ages, but I think it's worth recognizing that people feel that
children deserve greater protection than adults, as Mark Andrejevic argues.
If scholars advocated 'no tracking for kids under 13,' that might then
trigger a different discussion: at what age do we as adults want to say,
'sure, Facebook can own my data?'  Or, "Facebook can own my kid's data after
13 but not before."  I'd like to see more of that kind of discussion in our
media literacy efforts.  Our challenge is to change the parental concern
from that of stalkers to the commercially supported media environment.

One final point: as this survey was an online opt-in, it's important to
recognize that it represents those online, not "all" parents.   I had to
keep reminding myself of that when reading it, as even with the weighting we
can see that lower income and lower education groups are underrepresented.
I'm finding a lot more concern about surveillance among lower income
families (not surprisingly, the concerns are framed as government not
corporate surveillance).  Can someone point me to who might be doing survey
research among this population?

 Lynn Schofield Clark, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Dir Graduate Studies, & Director, Estlow International
Center for Journalism & New Media
Dept of Media, Film, & Journalism Studies
University of Denver
2490 S. Gaylord St. 
Denver, CO  80208
phone: (303) 871-3984
email: Lynn.Clark@...
websites: 
http://Estlow.org 
http://lynnschofieldclark.com
http://digitalparenting.wordpress.com
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Seeta Gangadharan | 8 Nov 04:56
Picon
Favicon

Re: Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook's 13+ Rule

Hi Lynn/all,

Thanks for this message. Per your point

>I'm finding a lot more concern about surveillance among lower income families (not surprisingly, the
concerns are framed as government not corporate surveillance).

I am just at the very beginning stages of a qualitative study that 
examines the issue of online surveillance within the context of digital 
inclusion policies. (My starting point is the concept of digital 
inclusion, not the nature of online privacy or surveillance.) The study 
will take me to four different sites (in the U.S.) where members of 
chronically underserved communities are going online for the first time 
or relying on community anchors for access to and knowledge about 
broadband (fixed or mobile). This is not a family setting but a 
"gateway" setting, where I'm anticipating many concerns about 
surveillance will surface (note: we've seen hints even in survey-based 
and qualitative research coming out of the Federal Communications 
Commission with Horrigan et al. and Dailey et al.'s works). From initial 
preparatory interviews that I've done to set up the study, it seems 
that  concerns corporate surveillance are as potent as government 
ones... not surprising in the wake of the subprime lending crisis.

Pertinent to this thread, I should add I'm only looking at adults, 
including a community organization that serves seniors. That was a 
choice motivated by issues of (IRB) practicality. Nevertheless, it'll be 
interesting to discover whether generational notions of privacy 
supercede those of affinity-based ones. It'll also be interesting how 
surveillance concerns stand in relation to other considerations weighing 
before historically marginalized communities. Though, again, I'm just in 
the very beginning stages of this study, my starting hunch is that 
low-income communities of color (the main targets of digital inclusion 
policies) know they're being tracked even if they haven't been harmed 
per se; they are at a loss as to how to confront it; teachers or 
trainers are also facing challenges in keeping abreast of privacy 
protection tools; and hence the chronically underserved require much 
more than literacy programs to help them wade through the shifting sands 
of privacy online.

Though survey research might be useful in ascertaining snapshots of 
low-income communities' sentiments towards surveillance and privacy, I'm 
not certain that a survey will capture breadth of harmful experiences 
that result from tracking or that are perceived to result from tracking. 
I'd love to hear someone who's working toward that end to suggest otherwise.

Warm regards,
Seeta

On 11/7/11 8:31 AM, Lynn Clark wrote:
> This has been a very interesting discussion.  I've been doing ethnographic work with high schoolers in
lower income families and have data that support both the boyd et al. survey and Mark Andrejevic's points.
>
> I agree with danah that parents aren't very concerned about tracking (although many of us in the scholarly
community believe they should be). Still, I'm not in favor of the lowering or removal of COPPA's age
restrictions, or even of having Facebook et al. remove their "no one under 13" policy.  Yes, parents feel
that their views are more valid than those of the government's, but the "no one under 13"  policy does create
a moment for intervention, e.g., it becomes a point of discussion between child and parent that's
valuable, even if both decide that the child is "mature" enough for violating the policy.  Getting on
Facebook and "at what age should my child get a cell phone?" seem to be two key questions of the tween years,
not just among children and parents but among parents within their own social circles.  Getting rid of the
COPPA age-based restrictions, then, could effectively remove an important moment at which parents want
the media literacy you want to provide. And w!
>   hereas I totally agree that we need to educate parents about media, it's also the case that parents will
probably always be two steps behind youth culture, as that's the nature of youth culture.  E.g., I remember
Jackie Marsh commenting in her work on Club Penguin that most parents first found out about the site when
their kids asked to be on it.  So I think there's a place for legislation and policy that precedes rather than
follows parental knowledge and addresses concerns about the childhood commercial environment that are
not quite articulated in terms of the specifics of online tracking and surveillance, but are clearly out
in the discourse (witness the popularity of Juliet Schor's Born to Buy etc.).
>
> The last sentence of the article raises two points: abandon age-based mechanisms, and devise new
solutions "that help limit when, where, and how data are used."  I agree that it would be nice if we could
limit tracking for all ages, but I think it's worth recognizing that people feel that children deserve
greater protection than adults, as Mark Andrejevic argues.  If scholars advocated 'no tracking for kids
under 13,' that might then trigger a different discussion: at what age do we as adults want to say, 'sure,
Facebook can own my data?'  Or, "Facebook can own my kid's data after 13 but not before."  I'd like to see more
of that kind of discussion in our media literacy efforts.  Our challenge is to change the parental concern
from that of stalkers to the commercially supported media environment.
>
> One final point: as this survey was an online opt-in, it's important to recognize that it represents those
online, not "all" parents.   I had to keep reminding myself of that when reading it, as even with the
weighting we can see that lower income and lower education groups are underrepresented.  I'm finding a lot
more concern about surveillance among lower income families (not surprisingly, the concerns are framed
as government not corporate surveillance).  Can someone point me to who might be doing survey research
among this population?
>
>   Lynn Schofield Clark, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor, Dir Graduate Studies,&  Director, Estlow International Center for Journalism& 
New Media
> Dept of Media, Film,&  Journalism Studies
> University of Denver
> 2490 S. Gaylord St.
> Denver, CO  80208
> phone: (303) 871-3984
> email: Lynn.Clark <at> du.edu
> websites:
> http://Estlow.org
> http://lynnschofieldclark.com
> http://digitalparenting.wordpress.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 7, 2011, at 1:17 AM, Tony Fish - AMF Ventures wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-- 
Seeta Peña Gangadharan, PhD
Visiting Fellow
Information Society Project
Yale Law School
p. +1.415.377.5069 | f. +1.815.346.2523

_______________________________________________
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
Permalink | Reply |
headers
John Sobol | 8 Nov 16:20
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook's 13+ Rule

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Seeta Gangadharan <seeta.gangadharan-LrD5EImo2rg@public.gmane.org> wrote:

Hi Lynn/all,

Though survey research might be useful in ascertaining snapshots of
low-income communities' sentiments towards surveillance and privacy, I'm
not certain that a survey will capture breadth of harmful experiences
that result from tracking or that are perceived to result from tracking.
I'd love to hear someone who's working toward that end to suggest otherwise.

Hi all,

I would be interested to hear from people about this question too, specifically, what are the actual harmful experiences that have resulted from corporate tracking/targeting of teens/kids, as opposed to the perceived or potential harmful experiences? I can think of the RIAA lawsuits but would be keen to hear about others.

Personally, as a parent of 'tweens I sympathize with the perspective that assumes that any and all tracking and targeting of our kids - corporate or otherwise - is inherently dangerous and undesirable. But another part of me wonders whether this is not an unfounded assumption.

For example, I am of the belief that the passion for privacy that is inherent to literate culture and that arises out of the anonymity of literate technology has been a key factor in destroying our perception of the interrelatedness of all things, and thus in enabling our disastrous delusion that it is OK to exploit the earth to death (ours). Perhaps our desire to migrate anonymity into networked culture is a fundamental mistake? Perhaps we need to maximize our interconnectedness and our collective being, not as unknown atomic individuals but as individuals unafraid of being known by our words and deeds (or profile), i.e. not anonymous? Perhaps the price we pay for our targeted social networking is targeted commercial networking? Perhaps it is inevitable and OK that our economy should become personalized - as it once was in oral economies - and our resistance to this stems from our allegiance to literate economic principles and values that are based on impersonal standardization as opposed to targeted personalization and interaction (automated or in-person)?

Targeted marketing already serves us well (or does it? I would say it does) on ebay and amazon and etsy etc. Besides, was listening to the radio not a form of targeting, and of suggestive marketing, or watching TV or reading the newspaper? We let our kids do those things, so the difference appears to be in the personalized tracking/targeting capabilities not in the pushing out of suggestions per se. Partly what I'm saying is, do I care if personalized ads as opposed to generic ads are targeted at my daughter? No I don't. Do I care that a vast store of data about her personal and commercial (and when she gets older, professional) life is in the hands of a company that could be hacked or that could sell it to a 3rd party for non-commercial uses? Yes, definitely. So although I don't really care about marketing,  I do care about security. So from my personal perspective, perhaps the focus of researcher's concern should be less on the not-so-nefarious practice of targeted marketing and instead on the seemingly more alarming danger of personal data being exported for non-commercial purposes?

Obviously the 'potential' harm is 1984ish and nightmarish. But perhaps the 'potential' benefits, on the other hand, are utopian. Or more likely both are somewhat exaggerated. But I disagree with you Danah when you say that the key determining factor is social norms. I think the determining factor is the architecture of the technology, or the code as you/LL put it.  Because social norms change as a result of technological architectures and not the other way around, despite the fact that it is heresy to say so. (Unfortunately, the Myth of the Myth of Technological Determinism is even more entrenched than the Myth of the Myth of the Digital Native!) So partly what I am wondering is whether - given that the architecture of networked culture promotes personalization and destroys anonymity, fighting that new digital norm is a less useful activity than building constructively on it, no matter how uneasy this may make those of us who were raised to cherish and expect anonymity in commerce and elsewhere.

For example, I do not believe that the appropriate response to the RIAA's litigious attacks on digital sharing is deeper hiding and sneakier sharing tools, precisely because downloaders will always be trackable. I think the appropriate response is collective self-empowerment in which millions of people should come together and publicly acknowledge their actions as part of a popular movement to challenge IP law and at the very least stop the harmful music industry attacks on students and their families. Alternately, bands should shed their labels and develop digitally-enabled fanclubs in which every single fan is known by name and can be tracked and targeted, so music and media can flow downstream to fans and money can flow upstream to bands and the RIAA can be left out of it all entirely. That would be an excellent example of benevolent targeted marketing and personalized commerce, and I'd have no problem with my 12 year old sharing her personal info in that context...

These are open-ended questions. Just thinking out loud and exploring different perspectives...all comments welcome...

John Sobol
--
www.youareyourmedia.com
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Tony Fish | 9 Nov 16:43

Re: Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook's 13+ Rule

John

 

from the session last week with a bunch of London based screenagers (14, 16, 17, 19 and 21 years old) - it is evident that they are far more aware than their parents of harm and benefits, indeed they are the educators of the teachers, younger siblings and parents (and me)

 

They (screenagers)  have found various ways round services that they don't want to be tracked on and indeed one question came up about "show me how easy it is to track" which showed that, at scale, it is much harder than you think...... 1. location is off.  2. parents pay for mobiles.  3. mobile is pay as you go.  4. several subscription for mobiles 5. use of persona and pseudonyms  5. closed user groups   6. privacy setting managed   7. use different IM to respond to question   8. migrate across platforms and services over an evening..... 9. private back channels 10. shared machines at home

 

So we have "Consumer Kids" Mayo and Nairn at one end is about the possible but as show in the demo's of tracking - not probable..... At the other end someone knows everything and you cannot hide - again possible but not probable.  

 

best

 

 

Tony

07808 142121

From: idc-bounces-xGejAJT2w6zHsyC+C8RGZV6hYfS7NtTn@public.gmane.org [mailto:idc-bounces-xGejAJT2w6zHsyC+C8RGZV6hYfS7NtTn@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of John Sobol
Sent: 08 November 2011 15:21
To: idc-xGejAJT2w6zHsyC+C8RGZV6hYfS7NtTn@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [iDC] Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook's 13+ Rule

 

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Seeta Gangadharan <seeta.gangadharan-LrD5EImo2rg@public.gmane.org> wrote:

Hi Lynn/all,

Though survey research might be useful in ascertaining snapshots of
low-income communities' sentiments towards surveillance and privacy, I'm
not certain that a survey will capture breadth of harmful experiences
that result from tracking or that are perceived to result from tracking.
I'd love to hear someone who's working toward that end to suggest otherwise.


Hi all,

I would be interested to hear from people about this question too, specifically, what are the actual harmful experiences that have resulted from corporate tracking/targeting of teens/kids, as opposed to the perceived or potential harmful experiences? I can think of the RIAA lawsuits but would be keen to hear about others.

Personally, as a parent of 'tweens I sympathize with the perspective that assumes that any and all tracking and targeting of our kids - corporate or otherwise - is inherently dangerous and undesirable. But another part of me wonders whether this is not an unfounded assumption.

For example, I am of the belief that the passion for privacy that is inherent to literate culture and that arises out of the anonymity of literate technology has been a key factor in destroying our perception of the interrelatedness of all things, and thus in enabling our disastrous delusion that it is OK to exploit the earth to death (ours). Perhaps our desire to migrate anonymity into networked culture is a fundamental mistake? Perhaps we need to maximize our interconnectedness and our collective being, not as unknown atomic individuals but as individuals unafraid of being known by our words and deeds (or profile), i.e. not anonymous? Perhaps the price we pay for our targeted social networking is targeted commercial networking? Perhaps it is inevitable and OK that our economy should become personalized - as it once was in oral economies - and our resistance to this stems from our allegiance to literate economic principles and values that are based on impersonal standardization as opposed to targeted personalization and interaction (automated or in-person)?

Targeted marketing already serves us well (or does it? I would say it does) on ebay and amazon and etsy etc. Besides, was listening to the radio not a form of targeting, and of suggestive marketing, or watching TV or reading the newspaper? We let our kids do those things, so the difference appears to be in the personalized tracking/targeting capabilities not in the pushing out of suggestions per se. Partly what I'm saying is, do I care if personalized ads as opposed to generic ads are targeted at my daughter? No I don't. Do I care that a vast store of data about her personal and commercial (and when she gets older, professional) life is in the hands of a company that could be hacked or that could sell it to a 3rd party for non-commercial uses? Yes, definitely. So although I don't really care about marketing,  I do care about security. So from my personal perspective, perhaps the focus of researcher's concern should be less on the not-so-nefarious practice of targeted marketing and instead on the seemingly more alarming danger of personal data being exported for non-commercial purposes?

Obviously the 'potential' harm is 1984ish and nightmarish. But perhaps the 'potential' benefits, on the other hand, are utopian. Or more likely both are somewhat exaggerated. But I disagree with you Danah when you say that the key determining factor is social norms. I think the determining factor is the architecture of the technology, or the code as you/LL put it.  Because social norms change as a result of technological architectures and not the other way around, despite the fact that it is heresy to say so. (Unfortunately, the Myth of the Myth of Technological Determinism is even more entrenched than the Myth of the Myth of the Digital Native!) So partly what I am wondering is whether - given that the architecture of networked culture promotes personalization and destroys anonymity, fighting that new digital norm is a less useful activity than building constructively on it, no matter how uneasy this may make those of us who were raised to cherish and expect anonymity in commerce and elsewhere.

For example, I do not believe that the appropriate response to the RIAA's litigious attacks on digital sharing is deeper hiding and sneakier sharing tools, precisely because downloaders will always be trackable. I think the appropriate response is collective self-empowerment in which millions of people should come together and publicly acknowledge their actions as part of a popular movement to challenge IP law and at the very least stop the harmful music industry attacks on students and their families. Alternately, bands should shed their labels and develop digitally-enabled fanclubs in which every single fan is known by name and can be tracked and targeted, so music and media can flow downstream to fans and money can flow upstream to bands and the RIAA can be left out of it all entirely. That would be an excellent example of benevolent targeted marketing and personalized commerce, and I'd have no problem with my 12 year old sharing her personal info in that context...

These are open-ended questions. Just thinking out loud and exploring different perspectives...all comments welcome...

John Sobol
--
www.youareyourmedia.com

Permalink | Reply |
headers
danah boyd | 10 Nov 03:29
Favicon

Re: Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook's 13+ Rule

I think that it's irresponsible to collect data about people without their understanding of what's going
on and their ability to intervene in a reasonable way.  For one version of why, I recommend reading "The
Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" and consider what her family went through.  I also think that a lot of
databases are being used to manipulate and segregate people and I think that we need to think through the
cultural implications of this. Not at an individual harm level, but at a societal level.  What happens when
people of color get different experiences than white folks?  Think: Filter Bubble issues.  Finally,
there's the worst case scenario.  I think about how the Dutch government's database on its citizens was
abused in the 1940s.  

All of these techs come with good and bad.  I don't want to throw away the good to ward off the bad. But I think
that we need to have an informed citizenry and I think that people need to understand the implications of a
data society.  I don't think that we can just accept policies that keep people in the dark, even if it's meant
to be for their own good. I think that's unethical and immoral.  Thus, what matters most to me is not about
protecting people, but about empowering them. Making sure that they can understand what's going on and
make informed decisions.

danah

On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:20 AM, John Sobol wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Seeta Gangadharan <seeta.gangadharan@...> wrote:
> Hi Lynn/all,
> 
> Though survey research might be useful in ascertaining snapshots of
> low-income communities' sentiments towards surveillance and privacy, I'm
> not certain that a survey will capture breadth of harmful experiences
> that result from tracking or that are perceived to result from tracking.
> I'd love to hear someone who's working toward that end to suggest otherwise.
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I would be interested to hear from people about this question too, specifically, what are the actual
harmful experiences that have resulted from corporate tracking/targeting of teens/kids, as opposed to
the perceived or potential harmful experiences? I can think of the RIAA lawsuits but would be keen to hear
about others. 
> 
> Personally, as a parent of 'tweens I sympathize with the perspective that assumes that any and all
tracking and targeting of our kids - corporate or otherwise - is inherently dangerous and undesirable.
But another part of me wonders whether this is not an unfounded assumption.
> 
> For example, I am of the belief that the passion for privacy that is inherent to literate culture and that
arises out of the anonymity of literate technology has been a key factor in destroying our perception of
the interrelatedness of all things, and thus in enabling our disastrous delusion that it is OK to exploit
the earth to death (ours). Perhaps our desire to migrate anonymity into networked culture is a
fundamental mistake? Perhaps we need to maximize our interconnectedness and our collective being, not
as unknown atomic individuals but as individuals unafraid of being known by our words and deeds (or
profile), i.e. not anonymous? Perhaps the price we pay for our targeted social networking is targeted
commercial networking? Perhaps it is inevitable and OK that our economy should be
 come personalized - as it once was in oral economies - and our resistance to this stems from our allegiance to
literate economic principles and values that are based on impersonal standardization as opposed to
targeted personalization and interaction (automated or in-person)? 
> 
> Targeted marketing already serves us well (or does it? I would say it does) on ebay and amazon and etsy etc.
Besides, was listening to the radio not a form of targeting, and of suggestive marketing, or watching TV or
reading the newspaper? We let our kids do those things, so the difference appears to be in the personalized
tracking/targeting capabilities not in the pushing out of suggestions per se. Partly what I'm saying is,
do I care if personalized ads as opposed to generic ads are targeted at my daughter? No I don't. Do I care that
a vast store of data about her personal and commercial (and when she gets older, professional) life is in
the hands of a company that could be hacked or that could sell it to a 3rd party for non-commercial uses? Yes,
definitely. So although I don't really 
 care about marketing,  I do care about security. So from my personal perspective, perhaps the focus of
researcher's concern should be less on the not-so-nefarious practice of targeted marketing and instead
on the seemingly more alarming danger of personal data being exported for non-commercial purposes? 
> 
> Obviously the 'potential' harm is 1984ish and nightmarish. But perhaps the 'potential' benefits, on the
other hand, are utopian. Or more likely both are somewhat exaggerated. But I disagree with you Danah when
you say that the key determining factor is social norms. I think the determining factor is the
architecture of the technology, or the code as you/LL put it.  Because social norms change as a result of
technological architectures and not the other way around, despite the fact that it is heresy to say so.
(Unfortunately, the Myth of the Myth of Technological Determinism is even more entrenched than the Myth
of the Myth of the Digital Native!) So partly what I am wondering is whether - given that the architecture of
networked culture promotes personalization and destroys anonymity, fi
 ghting that new digital norm is a less useful activity than building constructively on it, no matter how
uneasy this may make those of us who were raised to cherish and expect anonymity in commerce and elsewhere. 
> 
> For example, I do not believe that the appropriate response to the RIAA's litigious attacks on digital
sharing is deeper hiding and sneakier sharing tools, precisely because downloaders will always be
trackable. I think the appropriate response is collective self-empowerment in which millions of people
should come together and publicly acknowledge their actions as part of a popular movement to challenge IP
law and at the very least stop the harmful music industry attacks on students and their families.
Alternately, bands should shed their labels and develop digitally-enabled fanclubs in which every
single fan is known by name and can be tracked and targeted, so music and media can flow downstream to fans
and money can flow upstream to bands and the RIAA can be left out of it all entirely
 . That would be an excellent example of benevolent targeted marketing and personalized commerce, and I'd
have no problem with my 12 year old sharing her personal info in that context...
> 
> These are open-ended questions. Just thinking out loud and exploring different perspectives...all
comments welcome...
> 
> John Sobol
> --
> www.youareyourmedia.com
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC@...
> 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

------

"taken out of context, i must seem so strange" -- ani
http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/
http://www.danah.org/
@zephoria
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Mark Andrejevic | 10 Nov 04:24
Picon

Re: Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook's 13+ Rule

John's post raises some core questions for discussions about the brave new world of ubiquitous commercial monitoring. 


To answer the question of the potential harms of tracking and target marketing to kids -- and others (setting aside questions about potential "abuse" or data breaches and focusing on the use proper, as it were), would mean considering the impact of marketing, commercialization, and advertising more generally on children (and society) as well as the ways in which these shape the content to which they are exposed and their access to information (if, as Mark Zuckerberg thinks, his social algorithms will eventually take primacy in organizing our information worlds for us, what does it mean that these are developed in accordance with commercial imperatives? What kind of information will be prioritized and made available via the "social graph" if this is clearly governed by and subordinate to commercial imperatives? How might a Facebook social graph differ from one that was not crafted according to commercial imperatives? These are the same questions we once asked about how commercial imperatives structures the news and information made available via commercial media outlets. It surely retains its relevance and urgency in the online context, yet we don't seem to ask it as much).

In other words, it's not a new question -- if we are concerned about the impact of commodification and hyper-commercialization in offline realms, the recent developments in the online world would likely exacerbate those concerns. Even if we weren't we might start to get concerned about new marketing strategies and techniques. 

What is striking to me is the way in which the online world tends to get a free pass. If someone were to build a "free" private for-profit school that was funded by using students as guinea pigs for market research by spying on them, experimenting on them, keeping data about everything they did, and then using that to see how most effectively to influence their behavior and shape their knowledge in accordance with commercial imperatives, the creator of this school would likely be critiqued and the proposal roundly rejected. We might engage in some serious questions about what we had, as a society, become (or am I behind the times?). At the very least there would be some significant level of public debate. But when important new forms of sociality and self-expression online are funded this way, we all-too-readily accept that this is the "only" way it can be done and go on to ask, heck, what's so bad about marketing anyway: wouldn't we rather have ads that are relevant to us than ones that are not? 

John's post also highlights the problems with a privacy-based critique of information collection. There are many pathologies associated with the deployment of the notion of privacy, including the reinforcement of the imagined primacy of the classical liberal subject that underwrites the disturbing social pathologies of, say, the Tea Party with its antipathy to notions of collective goods, shared social responsibility, legal regulation, and so on. In more concrete terms, of course, a certain interpretation of the sanctity of privacy underwrites Facebook's business model, which is based not on "the end of privacy" but on the wholesale enclosure and privatization of huge amounts of data. Even as we become more visible to one another in some ways, what's going on "beneath" the platform or "behind" the screen becomes increasingly opaque (if only because it's getting more involved and sophisticated). 

We don't have a clear idea of the experiments being conducted on us, the range of data collected about us, or how this data is used because these practices are not open and available to us. It would be interesting if Facebook were as open as some Facebook users, posting an update whenever they conducted a new experiment on us, and writing on our walls exactly what data they had captured about us (including when and for how long we looked at our walls). There is an asymmetry to the so called "end of privacy": users are subjected to it, whereas those who control the commercial platforms are exempted in significant ways. There are huge emerging asymmetries in the terabyte world of "super crunching": those with access to the databases and the tools for managing them can use data in quite different ways than those without access. Data has different significance and affordances for them. Moreover, the data itself is collected in asymmetric ways. Imagine an application that monitored what Facebook does with our information as closely as Facebook monitored its users (not that that would redress the asymmetry entirely -- I think more is at stake). 

It's probably more helpful to approach these issues through the lenses of power, accountability, democracy and social justice than through the lens of "privacy" concerns. When people express their concerns about privacy (even as their behavior seems to belie their words), it may well be that they are attempting to get at some of these broader concerns but don't have enough a well enough established public vocabulary to get at them. 

It's worth understanding that target marketing in the world of the expanding database is not simply about collaborative filtering (showing us things that other people who like the things we like also like) or linking ads to past preferences. The folks engaged in cutting edge forms of data-mining and targeted advertising are interested in how  knowledge about everything from our moods to our particular anxieties to our DNA can provide leverage over us in ways that we are not aware of (the fear is that if we know what's going on, the strategies might become less effective). They are also interested not simply in tracking but in creating variations in the conditions within which we are tracked in order to conduct ongoing controlled experiments. If that sounds paranoid, just read the marketing literature on this -- it's creepy in a fascinating futuristic kind off way. I don't know if these techniques will actually work, but it's worth understanding that we are incorporating the assumption that they will into emerging economic models for supporting our communicative and informational infrastructure. I'm not trying to over-dramatize the issue - but I think it's worth anticipating the direction in which the industry seems to be headed.


On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:20 AM, John Sobol <soboltalk-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Seeta Gangadharan <seeta.gangadharan-LrD5EImo2rg@public.gmane.org> wrote:
Hi Lynn/all,


Though survey research might be useful in ascertaining snapshots of
low-income communities' sentiments towards surveillance and privacy, I'm
not certain that a survey will capture breadth of harmful experiences
that result from tracking or that are perceived to result from tracking.
I'd love to hear someone who's working toward that end to suggest otherwise.

Hi all,

I would be interested to hear from people about this question too, specifically, what are the actual harmful experiences that have resulted from corporate tracking/targeting of teens/kids, as opposed to the perceived or potential harmful experiences? I can think of the RIAA lawsuits but would be keen to hear about others.

Personally, as a parent of 'tweens I sympathize with the perspective that assumes that any and all tracking and targeting of our kids - corporate or otherwise - is inherently dangerous and undesirable. But another part of me wonders whether this is not an unfounded assumption.

For example, I am of the belief that the passion for privacy that is inherent to literate culture and that arises out of the anonymity of literate technology has been a key factor in destroying our perception of the interrelatedness of all things, and thus in enabling our disastrous delusion that it is OK to exploit the earth to death (ours). Perhaps our desire to migrate anonymity into networked culture is a fundamental mistake? Perhaps we need to maximize our interconnectedness and our collective being, not as unknown atomic individuals but as individuals unafraid of being known by our words and deeds (or profile), i.e. not anonymous? Perhaps the price we pay for our targeted social networking is targeted commercial networking? Perhaps it is inevitable and OK that our economy should become personalized - as it once was in oral economies - and our resistance to this stems from our allegiance to literate economic principles and values that are based on impersonal standardization as opposed to targeted personalization and interaction (automated or in-person)?

Targeted marketing already serves us well (or does it? I would say it does) on ebay and amazon and etsy etc. Besides, was listening to the radio not a form of targeting, and of suggestive marketing, or watching TV or reading the newspaper? We let our kids do those things, so the difference appears to be in the personalized tracking/targeting capabilities not in the pushing out of suggestions per se. Partly what I'm saying is, do I care if personalized ads as opposed to generic ads are targeted at my daughter? No I don't. Do I care that a vast store of data about her personal and commercial (and when she gets older, professional) life is in the hands of a company that could be hacked or that could sell it to a 3rd party for non-commercial uses? Yes, definitely. So although I don't really care about marketing,  I do care about security. So from my personal perspective, perhaps the focus of researcher's concern should be less on the not-so-nefarious practice of targeted marketing and instead on the seemingly more alarming danger of personal data being exported for non-commercial purposes?

Obviously the 'potential' harm is 1984ish and nightmarish. But perhaps the 'potential' benefits, on the other hand, are utopian. Or more likely both are somewhat exaggerated. But I disagree with you Danah when you say that the key determining factor is social norms. I think the determining factor is the architecture of the technology, or the code as you/LL put it.  Because social norms change as a result of technological architectures and not the other way around, despite the fact that it is heresy to say so. (Unfortunately, the Myth of the Myth of Technological Determinism is even more entrenched than the Myth of the Myth of the Digital Native!) So partly what I am wondering is whether - given that the architecture of networked culture promotes personalization and destroys anonymity, fighting that new digital norm is a less useful activity than building constructively on it, no matter how uneasy this may make those of us who were raised to cherish and expect anonymity in commerce and elsewhere.

For example, I do not believe that the appropriate response to the RIAA's litigious attacks on digital sharing is deeper hiding and sneakier sharing tools, precisely because downloaders will always be trackable. I think the appropriate response is collective self-empowerment in which millions of people should come together and publicly acknowledge their actions as part of a popular movement to challenge IP law and at the very least stop the harmful music industry attacks on students and their families. Alternately, bands should shed their labels and develop digitally-enabled fanclubs in which every single fan is known by name and can be tracked and targeted, so music and media can flow downstream to fans and money can flow upstream to bands and the RIAA can be left out of it all entirely. That would be an excellent example of benevolent targeted marketing and personalized commerce, and I'd have no problem with my 12 year old sharing her personal info in that context...

These are open-ended questions. Just thinking out loud and exploring different perspectives...all comments welcome...

John Sobol
--
www.youareyourmedia.com

_______________________________________________
iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (distributedcreativity.org)
iDC-xGejAJT2w6zHsyC+C8RGZV6hYfS7NtTn@public.gmane.org
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

Permalink | Reply |
headers
John Sobol | 10 Nov 18:03
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook's 13+ Rule

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Mark Andrejevic <markbandrejevic-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

"What kind of information will be prioritized and made available via the "social graph" if this is clearly governed by and subordinate to commercial imperatives? How might a Facebook social graph differ from one that was not crafted according to commercial imperatives? These are the same questions we once asked about how commercial imperatives structures the news and information made available via commercial media outlets. It surely retains its relevance and urgency in the online context, yet we don't seem to ask it as much)."

Mark, these are all excellent questions. A few vaguely coherent thoughts in response...

- re general critiques of advertising and marketing to children, of the kind that were common a few decades ago but are now almost extinct...yes how much we have changed! My father was a pioneer in educational television but also wrote TV series based on GI Joe and Strawberry Shortcake, both essentially glorified marketing gimmicks, (which he hated but which paid the bills), and for a while I did both as well, so that tension and discourse is something I feel I've known my whole life. And although I used to loathe advertising, and I still cherish any situation without it, I have also spent a lot of time as an entrepreneur and business consultant and I have seen just how useful and in some cases necessary it is. It is one of the most powerful business models we have, for better or worse, often worse, but still, it has its place. And as that place has grown exponentially in the past decades we should at least be clear that protecting kids from marketers is at this point basically non-existent. In large measure due to the fact that marketers were quickest to understand that the web is a social medium defined by relationships, and so they have colonized it very effectively. Much faster than have, for example, educational institutions or governments. (I would argue that this is because neither are defined by relationships but rather by monological literate values that are not compatible with the dialogical web, but that is my bone and I will not pick it here.) I would consider advocating reducing the impact of marketing on kids not by ineffectively regulating it but by building up the relational capabilities of our public sphere online so as to put the commercial sphere into a more reasonable and productive social perspective. Right now facebook is dominant in part because there is such a dearth of leadership and vision in other areas.

- You ask: "What kind of information will be prioritized and made available via the "social graph" if this is clearly governed by and subordinate to commercial imperatives?"


As regular readers of my comments here know, I believe we can find some answers to questions like this by examining the social dynamics of oral cultures, because they share common dialogical characteristics with digital cultures. So, for example, in oral cultures, interpersonal encounters are essential to commerce, as are personal relationships. Talk and transaction are mutually dependent. It is not the case that one exploits the other but rather that social and commercial interactions coexist, and coexist fruitfully. In our western - read: literate - commercial context, most commercial transactions are anonymous, involving minimal talk and no meaningful interpersonal relationships. The cashier does not really exist as a person but as an instrument of an economic system ruled by paper (cash, inventories, price lists, schedules, etc.) not people. When you buy something at a store you do not genuinely 'meet' the cashier. But when you buy something in any oral culture - at a market in rural Thailand or Morocco or Peru or India - it is exceedingly poor manners to not engage with the seller as an individual. In many cases, it is required. Things don't have prices listed on them. You have to ask. You have to bargain or you are both rude and foolish. You have to chat, taste, joke, look into each other's eyes. You have to get to know one another. And that's if you are a stranger! If you are a local, you are buying something from someone you have purchased from for years, and each transaction is a further installment of a long-standing relationship. Anyway, as I guess you can tell, my point is that we lived for countless generations with this integration of talk and transaction, and we liked it. Now, we live with anonymous transactions, and we like those. But neither is essentially better than the other. If the future involves new kinds of socialized commerce, ones that balance talk and transaction in new ways, we may get to like those too, and we should not assume that just because commerce is no longer anonymous that it will be inherently bad. Of course neither is it inherently good. But it is different from what we know.

Cheers
John
--
www.youareyourmedia.com
Permalink | Reply |
headers
danah boyd | 9 Nov 02:24
Favicon

Re: Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook's 13+ Rule

In terms of surveillance and class politics, I recommend Margaret Nelson's "Parenting Out of Control." 
Her work is ethnographic but she knows a lot about this space and the class politics involved.  

There is no doubt that this survey is about parents who are online and whose kids are online.  And one thing
that we've been learning about those who opt out is that they are primarily religious (not actually simply
lower SES).  They opt out because they don't want their children exposed to public content at all.  

As for my personal take on addressing COPPA.  The following are 100% my personal opinions and don't reflect
the attitudes of my co-authors or any institution with which I am affiliated. But what I would personally
like to see in response to the failures of COPPA is the following:

1) Don't extend COPPA.  Don't try to make it stronger.  Just leave it as-is for now.
2) Don't build on COPPA.  Do not allow bills like the "Do Not Track Kids Act" to presume that COPPA is working. 
Strip all COPPA-related elements from pending bills. 
3) Develop a strong media literacy curriculum around data.  Work with the Department of Education to make
certain that teachers are trained and teaching kids to think critically about all of the data that is being
collected and the implications that this has.  Develop a similar media literacy program for adults. 
Leverage Khan Academy.  Find ways to reach people writ large about data privacy.  Get people informed.  Make
that a priority.
4) Develop a private-public partnership to think through what a data ratings system could look like.  Most
ratings systems that have been proposed focus on content. This is great, but that's not what we need to
solve the problem here.  We need some way where parents can easily see what kinds of data are being collected
by their kid on the site, what's being done with that data, etc. Some way to create radical transparency for
data usage practices.  Use this to drive home media literacy.
5) Develop non-age-specific regulatory interventions that focus on the sale and abuse of data. Not the
collection, but the usage side of things.  These should be helpful to all people, regardless of age.
6) Then repeal COPPA.

That's my personal prescription for how to deal with this.  But the short version is that I'd like to see a lot
more money going into educating the public and making sure that folks can make informed choices and less
going into trying to maintain a broken law.

I'm not in favor of tracking and stalking our kids. But I'm also not in favor of the government playing in loco
parentis. I want the government to create an ecosystem where the public can become informed and make
informed decisions.  

I'm a big believer in Lessig's four points of regulation: market, law, social norms, and
technology/architecture.  I feel like too much of the focus tends to center on how law and technology can
counter market and technology.  Too little focuses on how to engage social norms as a regulatory force.
That starts with education.

danah

On Nov 7, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Lynn Clark wrote:

> 
> This has been a very interesting discussion.  I've been doing ethnographic work with high schoolers in
lower income families and have data that support both the boyd et al. survey and Mark Andrejevic's points.  
> 
> I agree with danah that parents aren't very concerned about tracking (although many of us in the scholarly
community believe they should be). Still, I'm not in favor of the lowering or removal of COPPA's age
restrictions, or even of having Facebook et al. remove their "no one under 13" policy.  Yes, parents feel
that their views are more valid than those of the government's, but the "no one under 13"  policy does create
a moment for intervention, e.g., it becomes a point of discussion between child and parent that's
valuable, even if both decide that the child is "mature" enough for violating the policy.  Getting on
Facebook and "at what age should my child get a cell phone?" seem to be two key questions of the tween years,
not just among children and parents but among parents within the
 ir own social circles.  Getting rid of the COPPA age-based restrictions, then, could effectively remove an
important moment at which parents want the media literacy you want to provide. And whereas I totally agree
that we need to educate parents about media, it's also the case that parents will probably always be two
steps behind youth culture, as that's the nature of youth culture.  E.g., I remember Jackie Marsh
commenting in her work on Club Penguin that most parents first found out about the site when their kids
asked to be on it.  So I think there's a place for legislation and policy that precedes rather than follows
parental knowledge and addresses concerns about the childhood commercial environment that are not
quite articulated in terms of the specifics of online tracking and surv
 eillance, but are clearly out in the discourse (witness the popularity of Juliet Schor's Born to Buy etc.).
> 
> The last sentence of the article raises two points: abandon age-based mechanisms, and devise new
solutions "that help limit when, where, and how data are used."  I agree that it would be nice if we could
limit tracking for all ages, but I think it's worth recognizing that people feel that children deserve
greater protection than adults, as Mark Andrejevic argues.  If scholars advocated 'no tracking for kids
under 13,' that might then trigger a different discussion: at what age do we as adults want to say, 'sure,
Facebook can own my data?'  Or, "Facebook can own my kid's data after 13 but not before."  I'd like to see more
of that kind of discussion in our media literacy efforts.  Our challenge is to change the parental concern
from that of stalkers to the commercially supported media env
 ironment.
> 
> One final point: as this survey was an online opt-in, it's important to recognize that it represents those
online, not "all" parents.   I had to keep reminding myself of that when reading it, as even with the
weighting we can see that lower income and lower education groups are underrepresented.  I'm finding a lot
more concern about surveillance among lower income families (not surprisingly, the concerns are framed
as government not corporate surveillance).  Can someone point me to who might be doing survey research
among this population?
> 
> Lynn Schofield Clark, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor, Dir Graduate Studies, & Director, Estlow International Center for Journalism &
New Media
> Dept of Media, Film, & Journalism Studies
> University of Denver
> 2490 S. Gaylord St. 
> Denver, CO  80208
> phone: (303) 871-3984
> email: Lynn.Clark@...
> websites: 
> http://Estlow.org 
> http://lynnschofieldclark.com
> http://digitalparenting.wordpress.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 7, 2011, at 1:17 AM, Tony Fish - AMF Ventures wrote:
> 
>> 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@...
>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (distributedcreativity.org)
>> iDC@...
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC@...
> 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

------

"taken out of context, i must seem so strange" -- ani
http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/
http://www.danah.org/
@zephoria
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Mark Andrejevic | 10 Nov 01:15
Picon

Re: Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook’s 13+ Rule

Thanks to danah for the thoughtful response,

I think in the end, your study does a good job of demonstrating that the attempt by COPPA to address issues of maturity/safety online is problematic in a variety of ways -- including those associated with the examples you cite in your most recent post. 

What seems less convincing, based on your own findings, is the broader attempt to contest the notion of age-related restrictions of any kind on information collection. If, as you reasonably argue, legal regulation (or as you put it, "Protectionism from the State"), is ineffective when it doesn't accord with social norms, your own study indicates that the majority of parents (57 percent) say they support restrictions on data collection (tracking?) even if it means shutting down their children's access to social networking sites. That seems like a pretty significant finding. The "rock-solid" education plan you propose would most likely raise this percentage, based on what we've seen in the research on attitudes to tracking so far (again, Chris Hoofnagle and Joe Turow's work is extremely helpful on this). 

Empowering people to speak out against what is not right often leads to legal reforms -- and I wouldn't want to relegate those to the vilified category of "Protectionism from the State". A while back the FTC was talking about requiring Web sites to include a "no track" option; That would certainly give parents (and the rest of us) a choice, but  it would likely be disparaged by industry as over-reaching by the heavy hand of the state (and, of course, a threat to the online business model -- which tells us something about what types of choices the market makes available and what kinds it shuts down).  

General claims like "Parents don't want government playing in-loco parentis even when it's well-intended" probably aren't as useful as more specific findings regarding particular practices and preferences. I don't doubt the statement is true in a broad-brush kind of way, and most parents would agree with it, but I don't think it means parents would want all age-specific laws revoked so they could decide on their own whether their child is "ready" (to drive, vote, join the military, etc.). Interpreting data like yours means figuring out the most sensible way of reconciling broad claims about who should take responsibility for children with specific findings about the type of regulation people actually support. 

(as a related aside, it seems worth pointing out that the question "Who should have the final say about whether or not your child should be able to use Web sites and online services?" has a vaguely polemic feel to it, and not just because COPPA does not have the final say about access (as you scrupulously point out in your article). I'm not sure I'd call it a leading question, but when you ask this question, you pretty much know what kind of answer you're going to get. Framed differently you would likely get a very different response "Would you support a law that restricts marketers from gathering detailed information about everything your child does online?" for example.) 

I'm not trying to argue for COPPA as is. The attempt to reform COPPA is clearly an important one -- but I think it pushes the argument farther than the findings warrant to call for the elimination of all age-related forms of regulation, even those that the majority of parents would support. I'd be open to further arguments about the ways in which age-specific restrictions might, say, hinder more general forms of protection (or bolster an commercial model that we would be better off without), but the tone of your article pushes in a somewhat different direction: if you frame laws that limit tracking as "state protectionism" that limits free choice in the marketplace, you put yourself in a tricky position if you are really trying to argue (in the long run) for more comprehensive restrictions on tracking.

You raise an important issue about the difficulties of regulating collection: that, as long as people post information to a Web site, that site is involved in data collection. I suppose this poses a problem for the kind of do-not-track legislation proposed by the FTC -- would it mean sites like Facebook couldn't save users' photos and comments? In this case, regulations on use certainly make sense -- although I'm not sure why age-related restrictions on both collection and use wouldn't also make sense ("do not track kids' behavior online by capturing information about their activity - in addition to what they themselves post" alongside "do not use the information they post to market to them"). 

One of the most important findings of your study, at least to my mind, is the one that you mention in passing in your response: "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." As you point out, this is borne out by the research, and suggests that an important part of the online business model relies on practices about which the public is woefully ill informed and that it may not support once it learns more about them. 



 

 

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 7:48 AM, danah boyd <zephoria-tiaxG+wSQctg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> wrote:
[My apologies for my tardiness in responding; this week has been challenging.]

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.  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.

I do not believe that age restrictions do anything to address tracking.  Adults are clueless about tracking.  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.

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.  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.

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.

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.

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.

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/
<at> zephoria







Permalink | Reply |

Gmane