[iDC] Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook's 13+ Rule

Tue Nov 8 03:56:04 UTC 2011

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