Talk:Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
[edit] Possible contradiction? Or clarification required
This article states that both the COPPA (which it is about) and the COPA "passed". However, the COPA article states that the COPA did not pass for being unconstitutional. — Timwi 09:10, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)COPPA is unconstitutional.Why don't we deny internet acsess to sex offenders.COPPA sucks.
- Congress can pass laws whether they are constitutional or not. The Supreme Court can overturn laws for being unconstitutional. The law still passed, it was just subsequently overturned.
[edit] legal action resulting from COPPA
There has been legal action resulting from COPPA. Toysmart is one example. Another example: the FTC imposed a $30,000 penalty on Lisa Frank, Inc. for COPPA violations. Other examples can be found at the ftc website (ftc.gov) or CARU's website (caru.org).
[edit] I think common opinions should be stated in this article
This law is considered quite controversial, and I think this article should reflect that. Since it was first passed, I've heard a whole lot of criticism of this law, for example, that it's unconstitutional as it limits people's freedom, that it was badly implemented, and that it cannot be enforced anyhow. Then you have those who argue that it's necessary, and that it's fulfilling its purpose.
The article as it is is quite short, and over-simplifies things. If a law in not unanimously accepted, I feel that should be mentioned. --82.7.125.142 23:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree completely. There should at least be "criticisms" like in most other pages on similar topics. I would have to say this is one of (if not the) most controversial things to have happened to the internet in resent times. --Bky1701 12:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- I also agree. I have a little brother who is under 13 years old, and this law has effected him quite a bit. People should be able to see both sides of it, not just a few paragraphs about the very basic aspects. I think a criticism section or even another article should be made to explain the negative effects of the law. Kate 18:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] opinions in wikipedia
It's true that COPPA is controversial and problematic, and that this reality should be included in the article, but the original article felt a bit too one-sided. However, as a new editor I am hesitant to try to change that balance myself, so I'll just leave it alone and focus on what I know to be factually accurate.
What I'd like to do (when I get some time next week) is just add more factual information about COPPA, such as key details of the rule, examples of legal action (with links), and the recent decision to extend the "sliding scale" mechanism that relaxes the rules for certain websites.
And I welcome any feedback or advice from more experienced editors.
[edit] Implementation
The article seems to have a bias against COPPA and a certain ignorance in the law's implementation and real-world execution.
As a professional website producer who works quite often with COPPA, and who's clients include Fortune 100 companies, I simply can't believe without citation the claim that entire sites have shut down purely because of COPPA. I can tell you that building in a check like an email to a parent requesting permission (a very quick, simple and effective method), or requesting a user's age is incredibly easy. My team will take anywhere from 6-18 months to build a major website, and the addition of COPPA is negligible, taking perhaps 2-5 days out of our entire timeline, depending on the method of verification. The law is in fact quite flexible as to how a site checks a user's age. As the person responsible for delivering websites on time and on budget, COPPA just isn't for me a concern from a business or web development standpoint.
If a poster wants to claim websites that market to children all of a sudden are helpless in light of this law and need to shut down completely, we definately need to see verifcation of such a claim, otherwise it's just a business failure excuse.
If we're talking about effectiveness, there is certainly some debate (although, as I wrote, the email verfication has worked just fine for us). But to claim businesses have had to shut down because of the cost of compliance is simply not credible. Getting fined for non-compliance is another issue.
[edit] Implementation not on wiki
Am I allowed to do this if I am 12? I didn't even have to put in my email, dumbasses. PETN 01:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that by its autobiography policy, Wikipedia does not want the kinds of autobiographical information that COPPA regulates. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 17:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Might want to know law before running a business
- full text of COPPA removed
PETN 01:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC) collecting complaints contact the FCC if anyone is under 13 and using this site.
- Wikipedia does not collect personal information. There's no reason for you to be worried. Ashibaka tock 16:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- There is more to be worried about than personal information. I see you didn't read the law. Here is a what if: I am 12 years old, I just got a computer for my birthday and here I am typing away. There are no safe guards, as required by law to stop me from giving out my name and address. PETN 04:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proper site to file a COPPA complaint
Collecting complaints: contact the FCC if anyone is under 13 and using this site.
https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_CODE=PU01
[edit] There are sources!
The article now has sources, thanks to a nice editor. :) I'm going to remove the "article does not cite sources..." notice.
Just so you know. RexyRex 23:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, can we get some sources on sites catering to kids that had to be shut down because of COPPA? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Foreign Countries
Does the COPPA apply to foreign countries? IE, someone from, let's say Sweden, joins a website with their server in the US. Are they applicable to the COPPA?
Probably, but there's no way that could be enforced.
Yes, if the servers are hosted in the US then COPPA applies. If the servers are located in Mexico, Mexican Law applies. If the servers are in XXX country XXX countries laws apply.
[edit] Similar laws exist in other countries.
How about some references or links elsewhere on wikipedia.
[edit] COPPA suit settled for record amount
FTC Press Release: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/09/xanga.htm
Xanga statement: http://press.xanga.com/2006/09/07/statement/#more-5
[edit] Remove paragraph concerning photographs of children?
I would suggest removing the paragraph indicated below concerning photographs of children. The cited reference ("one US government department") appears to be referring to its own internal policy concerning photographs of children, not to any COPPA requirement.
"The application of the Act to photographs of children is a matter of interpretation that is yet to be tested in the courts. However, one US government department says "There is no restriction on the dissemination of photos of children, if they are taken in public spaces, with no identification, and are used only for editorial (not advertising) purposes. The use of pre-arranged photos, taken in a protected environment such as a school or hospital, and showing a highly-defined and recognizable image, requires a release"[3]
--merilee 17:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)MerileeNC
