Do We Really Need to Protect Children From the Internet?

Jeff Jarvis on Why We Don't Need to Protect Children From The Internet | TIME Ideas | TIME.com /* */ Home TIME Magazine Photos Videos Specials Topics Subscribe Mobile AppsNewslettersRSS @TIME NewsFeed U.S. Politics World Business Money Tech Health Science Entertainment Opinion SEARCH TIME.COM Full Archive Covers Videos HomeContributorsLetters InternetDo We Really Need to Protect Children From the Internet?By focusing on the dangers of the Internet, we risk losing sight of its benefitsBy Jeff Jarvis | @jeffjarvis | October 18, 2011 | View CommentsTweetGetty Images

Jarvis's latest book is Public Parts: How Sharing in the Digital Age Improves the Way We Work and Live.

The Federal Trade Commission is recommending updates to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which sounds timely, wise, and worthy. But it is doing so blind to the impact and unintended consequences of its regulation.

COPPA requires that sites serving children under the age 13 must give parents notice and get consent if they collect and use personally identifiable information — which is broadly defined—about a child. Under the proposed changes, parents may no longer use email to grant consent but must jump through hoops — printing, signing, and scanning or faxing forms or holding videoconferences with the site’s employees.

The unintended consequences of COPPA are many, but the most obvious is that children have learned to lie about their age. On the Internet, everyone is 14.

(MORE: Should Kids Be Allowed on Facebook?)

On a conference call organized by the Future of Privacy Forum, an industry group, I asked Mamie Kresses, senior attorney for the FTC’s Division of Advertising Practices, whether there had been any study about how truthful children are reporting their ages online. They have no such research, she said. I asked whether the FTC had any data about how often parents use the means of notice and consent COPPA provides. None, she said.

The most disturbing unintended consequence of the regulation, I think, is the chill it likely puts on serving children online. In the early days of the web, I started the Yuckiest Site on the Internet — about goo, bugs, and science — to serve young readers at the local news sites I ran. After COPPA, my employer decided the risk in serving young people and even inadvertently recording a child’s name or targeting an ad was too great.

We don’t know how many sites have not been started to serve children online. Isn’t this the group we should be serving best? I asked Kresses whether the FTC had done research on the extent of a chill. No, she said.

Finally, I asked whether the FTC had revisited the reasons for COPPA. What harm are we trying to prevent by restricting identity online — and is it effective? She responded with circular logic: They are giving parents the opportunity of notice and consent regarding children’s information.

But why? In the panic around privacy brought on by technology — the Internet today and the portable camera a century ago — the discussion is being driven by the worst case, the often unspoken, presumptive fear of what bad could happen. Could children be exploited online? Sadly, yes. Are they sometimes kidnapped from streets? Tragically so. But they still play outside under our watchful eye, because they need to.

Children need to play online, too. They should create and get credit for their creativity. They should be able to establish a relationship with an educational site where they can track their own progress. Technology and the net don’t just present danger; they afford opportunity. But by focusing only on the former, we can risk losing sight of the latter.

So how do we protect young people? In the research for my book about publicness and privacy, I learned much from Danah Boyd, a leading researcher in social media and youth for Microsoft and NYU. In matters of privacy, she cautions against concentrating only on the gathering of information and suggests we focus more on regulating the use of information. That a site knows my child is from New Jersey isn’t necessarily sinister, a case of stranger danger; it’s what the site does with that knowledge that matters. In not addressing that issue, COPPA both overreaches and underserves.

Jarvis, author of Public Parts, directs the Tow-Knight Center for Entrepreneurial Journalism at City University of New YorkRead other related stories about this:Update Urged on Children's Online PrivacyThe New York TimesRelated Topics: COPPA, Internet, Jarvis, online privacy, Business & Tech, Internet
emailprintshareLinkedInStumbleUponRedditDiggMixxDel.i.ciousWriteView Comments@TIMEIdeasLatest on TIME IdeasElections | October 18, 2011Gogues and Demons

One GOP frontrunner worships demons. The other is the anti-Christ. What’s an extremist Christian to do?

From our PartnersPlatinum Citizenship Dylan Ratigan, HuffPoEven State Immigration Laws Have to Face RealityTamar Jacoby, CNNThe Shameful Bias Against MormonsKathleen Parker, Washington PostLaw | October 18, 2011What Will Deter Insider Trading?

Longer prison sentences, like Rajaratnam’s, don’t necessarily have a greater impact. Maybe we should try public shaming

previousThe Steve Jobs Backlash BeginsnextWhat Will Deter Insider Trading?blog comments powered by Disqus Letters to the EditorOctober 17, 2011Defending Local FarmingA reader says the local food movement is not — and never was — meant to solve the global hunger problem October 14, 2011Childbirth DebateThe president of Lamaze International takes issue with a TIME Ideas piece about the myths of natural childbirthOctober 12, 2011American ProtestationsWhat does "antiglobalization" mean?Send us your letters | View more lettersMore on TIME.comPhotos: Occupy Wall StreetChicago Ideas Week 2011: Intelligence SquaredWhat You Need to Know About BullyingFull ListMost PopularTIME.COMIdeasMove Over, China: Why India May Be the Better Partner for Latin AmericaToddler Hit-And-Run Sparks Outrage in ChinaMaldives: In a Troubled Paradise, Time Runs Out on Environmental DeadlineStudy: 1 in 6 Cell Phones Contaminated With Fecal MatterScandal and the Vatican: Let's Not Talk About Kansas CityJudge Orders More Review on Polar BearsGilad Shalit and the End of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Processjapan's booming sex niche: elder pornWhat Slovakia's 'No' Means For The EuroWhat If the China Bubble Bursts?The Steve Jobs Backlash BeginsThe Next Abortion Battleground: Fetal HeartbeatsA Prelate In The DockDo We Really Need to Protect Children From the Internet?They’re Alive! Why Apple Products Are IrresistibleWhy PSA Tests Will Be So Hard To Give UpThe Real Reason Zombies Never DieThe Real Learning CurveFrom the Arab Spring to the American Fall?Can Whites Say The N-Word?Historic TIME LettersJuly 21, 1967Source of EmbarrassmentGovernor Reagan wants an explanationSeptember 8, 1975The Hustle EmbracedGinger Rogers on discoNovember 8, 1948She is My Wife and I Have to Live With HerHumprey Bogart sticks up for Miss Bacall Powered by WordPress.com VIP Stay Connected with TIME.comSubscribe to
RSS FeedsSign Up for
NewslettersGet the TIME
Magazine iPad EditionRead TIME Mobile
on your PhoneBecome a
Fan of TIMEGet TIME
Twitter Updates NewsFeed U.S. Politics World Business Money Health Science Entertainment Photos Videos Specials Magazine © 2011 Time Inc. All rights reservedPrivacy PolicyRSSNewsletterMobileTIME For KidsLIFE.com SubscribeContact UsTerms of UseMedia KitReprints & PermissionsHelpSite MapAd Choices TIME Our partners CNN CNN MONEY LIFE