Every Time A State Tries To 'Protect The Children' Online, It Makes Things Worse

from the bad-ideas dept

A few weeks ago, California Senate Bill 568 was signed into law, creating a whole host of "protect the children online" provisions -- almost all of which seem short-sighted to ambiguously dangerous. The part that has received the most attention is the "online eraser." While folks like Eric Schmidt have championed the idea of being able to have teenagers erase the past upon becoming an adult, the first attempt to turn that into a law appears to be a massive failure. Law professor Eric Goldman walked through many of the problems with the law -- much of which is focused on the vagueness of the bill:
the removal right doesn’t apply if the kids were paid or received “other consideration” for their content. What does “other consideration” mean in this context? If the marketing and distribution inherently provided by a user-generated content (UGC) website is enough, the law will almost never apply. Perhaps we’ll see websites/apps offering nominal compensation to users to bypass the law.
And then there's the reality that this won't actually do much to stop any harassment, since it only lets you erase the initial posting of content, but not further copies:
The law only allows minors to remove their content from the site where they posted it; and the removal right doesn’t apply where someone else has copied or reposted the content on that site. Removing the original copy typically accomplishes the minor’s apparent goal only when it’s the only copy online; otherwise, the content will live on and remain discoverable. Given how often publicly available content gets copied elsewhere on the Internet–especially when it’s edgy or controversial–minors’ purported control over the content they post will be illusory in most circumstances.
In fact, as the folks at New Media Rights point out, this means that the bill will be particularly useless:
... odds are that the more embarrassing the post is, the more likely it was shared. The law does not require that these shared posts be hidden, which the law should not. It would be unfair to give websites the impossible task of tracking down and hiding each iteration of a post on their site or on the entire internet. However, it’s unclear if hiding the original post will make much of a difference in cases where teen’s photos are shared and used against them. For example, in New York an Ex-NFL player created a website where he shared photos teens publicly posted on social media of themselves trashing and partying in a home he had up for sale. The teens in this case were able to delete their photos, but only from the original source.
Goldman, in his piece, also highlights the First Amendment problems:
Example 1: A newspaper prepares a collection of stories, written by teens, about their first-hand experiences with cyber-bullying. These stories are combined with other content on the topic: articles by experts on cyberbullying, screenshots of cyberbullying activity online, and photos of victims and perpetrators. After the newspaper publishes the collection, one of the teenagers changes his/her mind and demands that the newspaper never reprint the collection, and seeks a court order blocking republication. Does the newspaper have a potential First Amendment defense to the court order? Yes, and I don’t think the question is even close.

Example 2: a UGC website creates a topical area on cyberbullying and asks its registered users, including teens, to submit their stories, photos, screenshots and videos on the topic. The website “glues” the materials together with several articles written by its employees. Does the website have a First Amendment interest in continuing to publish the entire collection? Yes, and like the newspaper example, I don’t think it’s close.
And the law doesn't stop there, either. In another post, Goldman also rips apart a part in the bill that tries to block advertising "bad things" to kids online. It's one of those things that sounds good, and which politicians love because it makes it look like they're "protecting the children." But as per usual, the reality is a lot more messy.
First, the law protects minors’ “personal information” but doesn’t define the term. Without a definition, the term is meaningless. We know that just about any data can be combined with other data to personally identify individuals.

Second, the law doesn’t define who is an “advertising service.” Surely it covers ad networks like Google AdSense, but do the obligations extend to other players in the online ad industry: ad serving technology providers, ad agencies, buyers of remnant ad inventory, etc.?

Third, the law restricts “specifically directing” an ad to a minor, but I have no idea what that means. The law suggests that “run of site” ads should be OK, but I’m not sure when other targeting efforts trigger the restriction.

Finally, like its online eraser counterpart, the law establishes a potentially illusory distinction between teen-oriented websites and adult websites.
Furthermore, he notes that the law itself is almost certainly unconstitutional and violates certain federal laws.

So why is it always this way? It seems that certain politicians just can't avoid trying to "protect the children online," and yet every single time they try to do so, the end result is a mess: poorly drafted laws that don't actually do anything to protect children -- and which often just create opportunities for lawsuits over perfectly reasonable activities, creating a massive waste. This knee-jerk reaction to try to regulate the internet to "protect the children" is something that really needs to stop.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    limbodog (profile), Oct 7th, 2013 @ 2:02pm

    "The whole principle is wrong; it's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak." - Robert Heinlein - The Man Who Sold the Moon

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Oct 7th, 2013 @ 2:22pm

    The best way to protect our children online is for parents to educate them of the threats they will face. For many, though, that is just too much like hard work and it is far easier to just use the Internet as a babysitter. The state has no business interfering.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Oct 7th, 2013 @ 2:24pm

    "So why..."

    Here we see the danger of the rhetorical question; it invites wise-ass reply.

    "So why is it always this way?"

    1) 'Cuz our legislators are mostly (at least honorary) Amish when it comes to modern science and technology?

    2) Due to our legislators' (pick one or more) [high-gullability / low-intelligence / laziness]?

    3) Due to our legislators' beliefs in the (pick one or more) [high-gullability / low-intelligence / laziness] of their constituents, a.k.a., us?

    4) Because they're legislators, and it's a weekday (or Saturday or Sunday)?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 7th, 2013 @ 2:26pm

    It's a shame we don't have laws that protect us from harassment / stalking and other...oh wait.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 7th, 2013 @ 2:43pm

    Monetisation.

    Someone will set up a site to archive all posts by minors, and sell access to businesses as a candidate vetting service.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), Oct 7th, 2013 @ 3:22pm

    No First Amendment issues here

    At least according to Cowardly Joe, who will claim that Goldman's argument is that the ISP's are state actors, and that the laws are completely beyond Constitutional scrutiny if that argument is wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 7th, 2013 @ 3:24pm

    Re:

    You're right. The [apparent] protection afforded by avoidance is illusionary. Real protection comes from controled exposure, just as immunity comes from exposure.
    Unless, of course, you want to "hold their hands" their entire life because they never learned to deal with the threats that simply living always encompasses.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 7th, 2013 @ 3:27pm

    "protect the children online"

    ■ Don't let kids on the internet unsupervised.

    ■ Don't let kids freely communicate with potentially billions of strangers while unsupervised.




    How long will it take these fools to figure out that the internet at large is not a good playing ground for their kids?

    Meanwhile in real life... Parents allow kids to show pictures of themselves to strangers, chat with strangers and do whatever they want because they think of the internet as Ebay and Disney.com. Not the billions of people behind every node.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    California, Oct 7th, 2013 @ 3:35pm

    /s

    We must protect the children at all cost even if we have to kill every single one of them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Jollygreengiant (profile), Oct 7th, 2013 @ 3:42pm

    The best way to protect them is let them fly themselves out of Minnesota. Oh, they already do that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 7th, 2013 @ 4:02pm

    Quote:
    Third, the law restricts “specifically directing” an ad to a minor, but I have no idea what that means. The law suggests that “run of site” ads should be OK, but I’m not sure when other targeting efforts trigger the restriction.


    Maybe if people show to whomever wrote those laws a 3D rendering of a webpage they understand how complex any webpage today is?
    https://hacks.mozilla.org/2011/07/tilt-visualize-your-web-page-in-3d/

    For the children well, I do feel sorry for those that get it wrong and make mistakes, but real life is not theater you don't get another chance to do it over if you screw up, that is specially true in a place where replication of information is endless and without borders.

    Of all the places to baby proof the internet is the most unforgiven environment of all for such endeavors.

    Unless of course this is some kind of feel good law only.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Bergman (profile), Oct 7th, 2013 @ 6:07pm

    Re:

    A lot of parents are completely uneducated in this new-fangled internet thingy. They simply don't realize what they are subjecting their kids to.

    This is thankfully becoming less of an issue as time goes by, but right now it's still a major one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 7th, 2013 @ 6:25pm

    So why is it always this way?
    "I protected children with the laws I wrote this year, and I'll protect them again with the laws I write next year! Vote for me!"

    And since the laws don't actually fix the problem, you can keep rehashing them each election. Kids don't get help they need, but who cares? The important thing is tricking chumps into voting for you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    CK20XX, Oct 8th, 2013 @ 1:30am

    Silence

    Green card for a minor dispute with a classmate
    Go sit in the corner for five minutes
    Yellow card for not understanding why you got the green card
    Go sit in the adjacent classroom by yourself
    Red card for not bringing your homework to the other classroom
    Go directly to the principal's office
    Suspension for flailing in defense when someone tried to beat you up
    You were both part of the fight, so you're both guilty
    They say it takes two people to start a fight
    It actually only takes one person
    It takes two people to make it a fair fight
    But we have zero tolerance here
    Salt the earth, scorch the ground
    All in the name of keeping order
    Keep your head low if you know what's good for you
    Low enough so that even when someone kind appears
    You won't notice them
    Hide in the rushes
    Make not a sound
    Don't even call for help
    Lest the predators find you

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    toyotabedzrock (profile), Oct 8th, 2013 @ 1:55am

    Fed laws

    It violates no fed laws. It was a watered down law to please parents and to please the facebooks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 8th, 2013 @ 8:19am

    there is so much truth in these type of statements. the biggest problem being, those that normally want to introduce these 'rules' have an ulterior motive that is nothing to do with protecting the children at all. the end result being not just a fuck up but a total and complete fuck up that normally exposes those who are supposedly going to be better protected, more open to exploitation than before they started interfering! if it goes ahead, this will be the exact situation in the UK, caused by Cameron and Perry, neither of whom have a bloody clue what they are talking about, the problems that will be caused or the end result!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Oct 8th, 2013 @ 10:07am

    Re: Re:

    That's still the parent's failing. I would never have allowed my child to use a product or service that I was unfamiliar with.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Urgelt (profile), Oct 8th, 2013 @ 3:06pm

    What's the Point? This.

    Vague laws do have a point: they permit prosecutors, politicians and the police to target anyone who annoys them.

    It's a regular feature of authoritarian states.

    We're an authoritarian state now, in case you hadn't made the connection.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This