Hrrrmmm...

[belleweather]

Does anyone who has been more closely following "SurveyFail" and it's attendant fall out know if the fact that collecting any sort of identifying or demographic information from those who may be under 13 is punishable under COPPA and that there may also be other legal liability based on the fact that minors are potentially being solicited regarding

Comments

[rivkat]

Without diving deeply into this, COPPA is not designed for survey instruments but for commercial endeavors; the hope of publishing a book that might make money is highly unlikely to count as commercial for these purposes. Many sites not technically subject to COPPA comply with it anyway out of an abundance of caution, but even assuming this was a commercial endeavor, it wasn't directed at children.

I can't speak to non-COPPA stuff, and of course this is not legal advice.

[belleweather]

First, most of my COPPA background is in the legislative policy arena -- the ways in which COPPA allows the FTC to regulate the internet, so my understanding of the specifics of the law are a bit iffy. But I am pretty sure that even though it rests on the foundation of the commerce clause that it is not limited to commercial business. I don't see any limiting language in the reg to support the idea that it is -- especially since it's actual 'purpose' was to keep people from perving on kids in chat rooms

[rivkat]

15 USC 6501:
(2) Operator
The term “operator”-
(A) means any person who operates a website located on the Internet or an online service and who collects or maintains personal information from or about the users of or visitors to such website or online service, or on whose behalf such information is collected or maintained, where such website or online service is operated for commercial purposes, including any person offering products or services for sale through that website or online service, involving commerce [that Congress can constitutionally regulate]

It's in the statute. And that's not my understanding of the statutory purpose, which was not directed at molesters but at marketers. Personal information is defined so broadly that the anti-pervert interpretation doesn't make sense of the statute, either.

And "not aimed at kids" is enough to take you outside COPPA as long as you also comply with COPPA if/when you acquire actual knowledge that a child has provided personal information.

[belleweather]

My understanding if the legislative history is that the bill began as an outgrowth of some of the many failed attempts to regulate the internet in order to protect the children, and as the bill developed on the floor it ended up applying significantly more to marketing and information collection activities

[nicocoer]

I think there are laws about research conducted on minors? That might be more applicable.

[belleweather]

There may be, I'm not sure. But I think maybe what you're thinking about are the regulations about academic research? Those totally weren't followed, but since this research is commercial and not academic, they apparently don't have to be.

[nicocoer]

It either has to follow one or the other. And I think maybe there are standards on research regardless?

Any journalism folks know what the standards are for researching a story, if we aren't classifying it under either Academic or Commercial? These guys were BILLING it as Academic research, even if it wasn't, and as An earlier commenter noted they may not fall under the commercial guidelines. Alternatively, If they were billing it as Academic, any academics know if that means that academic standards apply since they self-identified as such?

Reminds me of Chaney disclaiming he has to follow by either Executive OR Congressional laws restricting his power otherwise.

[nicocoer]

Also, don't most sites that take any personal info from minors have to exclude those under 13, or. . .?

Sorry, I've been hanging out in the Health Care reform debates and some folk have driven me to drink this evening.

[nicocoer]

Also,

It would definitely have fall out under the asking minors about their sexuality/sexual habits thing, ESPECIALLY since they didn't get the needed academic approval which is pretty much the only way you can ask those things from random minors. Since they didn't, it enters the no fly zone.

I've participated in studies where the questions were as unsexualized as you can get for human sexuality research that categorically barred minors and those deemed unfit to consent to sexual activity from even SEEING the questions asked.

*points at icon* even House recognizes this no fly zone.

[nicocoer]

(If this doesn't fall under the COPPA you discussed, it falls under the other one you've mentioned. )

(Sorry, I lack ability to edit my comments. D:)

[rivkat]

No, academic approval really isn't the only way to ask these questions. You or I could ask those things from random minors (at least if we weren't governed by our employers' policies against it, which is what the IRB requirement is about). In fact fans do ask each other these questions all the time! What turns you on? What are your squicks? They aren't violating the law even though they may not restrict answers to people over 13.

There are some states that purport to require all "human subjects research" to have IRB review, but they've never been enforced and are, IMHO, unconstitutional as applied to asking questions.

[pseudohistorian]

As someone who hasn't heard of "SurveyFail" until this moment, I have no idea what anything in this thread is about.

Background, please? Entering "Hrrrmmm..." into a search engine doesn't seem to be helping. ;)

[annodomini]

Check the linkspam link (posted below) for more details than you ever wanted to know.

It's quite the epic trainwreck, so be warned.

[pseudohistorian]

Thanks for pointing me to that...

This should serve as a general reminder to people posting here that not everyone will be previously aware of whatever item(s) you're posting about, so some basic background and/or linkage is always appreciated.

[elfwreck]

This post has been included in a linkspam roundup.